ARGUMENT 


HON.  EMORY  WASHBURN, 


BEFOKE     AN 


ECCLESIASTICAL  COUNCIL, 


CONVENED  IN  HOLLIS  STREET  AtEETING  HOUSE,  JULY,  IWl :  WITH  THE  CHARGES  PREFERRED 
BY  THE  FROPRIETORS  OF  SAID  MEETING  HOUSE  AGAINST  THE 


REV.    JOHN    PIERPONT, 


^AND     THE 


RESULT  OF  SAID  COUNCIL. 


BOSTON : 

PRINTED  BY  SAMUEL  N.  DICKINSON,  NO.  52  WASHINGTON  STREET. 

1841. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcli  ive.org/details/argumentotlionemoOOwasliiala 


GROUNDS   OF   COMPLAINT 

PREFERRED  AGAINST  THE  REV.  JOHN  PIERPONT,  BY  THE  PARISH  CAL- 
LED THE  PROPRIETORS  OF  THE  HOLLIS-STREET  MEETING  BOUSE, 
TO  BE  SUBMITTED  TO  A  MUTUAL  ECCLESIASTICAL  COUNCIL,  AS 
REASONS  FOR  DISSOLVING  HIS  CONNEXION  WITH  SAID  PARISH. 

First,  That  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pierpont  has  ceased  to  be  a  useful 
minister  of  said  Parish,  and  has  alienated  the  affections  and  lost 
the  respect  of  a  large  portion  of  his  people,  by  reason  of  his  atten- 
tion having  been  diverted  from  the  duties  of  his  sacred  calling  to 
secular  pursuits  and  popular  controversies. 

Under  this  article  of  complaint,  evidence  will  be  offered  of  Mr. 
Pierpont's  too  great  devotion  of  his  time  to  mechanical  contriv- 
ances, and  to  the  compiling  of  school-books,  and  other  writings  for 
pecuniary  profit.  Of  his  too  great  devotion  to  the  supposed  sci- 
ence of  phrenology,  by  attending  meetings  of  phrenological  socie- 
ties and  lectures,  and  lecturing  himself  upon  the  subject  in  differ- 
ent places.  Of  his  too  busy  interference  with  questions  of  legis- 
lation on  the  subject  of  prohibiting  the  sale  of  ardent  spirits ;  of 
his  too  busy  interference  with  questions  of  legislation  on  the  sub- 
ject of  imprisonment  for  debt ;  of  his  too  busy  interference  with 
the  popular  controversy  on  the  subject  of  the  abolition  of  slavery. 

Second,  That  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has  alienated  the  affec- 
tions and  lost  the  respect  of  a  large  portion  of  his  people  by  his 
unkind  and  excited  manner  of  preaching  on  the  subjects  of  the 


manufacture  and  sale  of  ardent  spirits,  imprisonment  for  debt, 
abolition  of  slavery,  and  other  popular  controversies. 

Third,  That  after  a  difference  had  arisen  between  the  Rev. 
John  Pierpont  and  many^  of  his  parishioners  upon  some  of  the  sub- 
jects above  mentioned,  he  has  not  pursued  a  kind  or  conciliatory 
course,  but  on  the  contrary  has  continued  and  conducted  the  con- 
troversy with  his  said  parishioners,  in  a  harsh,  contemptuous,  vin- 
dictive and  unchristian  spirit,  by  which  the  minds  and  affections 
of  a  large  portion  of  his  Parish  are  justly  alienated  from  their  min- 
ister. 

Under  this  ground  of  complaint  evidence  will  be  offered  of  the 
conduct  of  Mr.  Pierpont  towards  individuals  of  his  Parish,  of  his 
remarks  in  the  pulpit  and  elsewhere,  and  of  his  published  letters 
to  committees  or  individuals  of  his  Parish. 

Fourth,  That  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has  in  his  published  let- 
ters to  committees  or  individuals  of  his  Parish  respecting  the  said 
controversy,  been  guilty  of  great  levity,  indecorum,  and  want  of 
reverence  for  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  his  own  sacred  calling,  by 
which  he  has  justly  lost  the  respect  and  confidence  of  a  great  por- 
tion of  his  parish  and  of  the  public,  and  brought  a  scandal  upon 
his  office  as  a  Christian  minister. 

Fifth,  That  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has  in  his  pulpit  and  else- 
where in  public,  unnecessarily  made  indelicate  statements  and 
allusions,  by  which  his  audiences,  and  more  especially  the  female 
portion  thereof,  have  been  mortified  and  disgusted,  and  the  confi- 
dence of  a  large  portion  of  his  Parish  and  of  the  public  in  the 
purity  of  his  mind  and  motives  been  impaired,  and  his  usefulness 
greatly  diminished. 


Under  this  ground  of  complaint,  evidence  will  be  offered  of  Mr. 
Pierpont's  having  spoken  in  his  pulpit  without  any  necessity  or 
sufficient  excuse  of  the  indecent  practices  of  foreign  countries,  and 
of  his  having  unnecessarily  and  indelicately  alluded  to  certain 
supposed  phrenological  organs,  in  one  or  more  lectures  delivered 
by  him  before  a  mixed  audience  of  males  and  females. 

Sixth,  That  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has  in  his  secular  dealings 
been  wanting  in  that  scrupulous  integrity  which  is  necessary  to 
the  respectability  and  usefulness  of  a  Christian  minister. 

Under  this  ground  of  complaint,  evidence  will  be  offered  of  his 
breach  of  engagement,  in  the  following  particulars,  viz : 

Pledging  to  another  the  copy-right  of  a  book,  which  he  had 
engaged  with  Mr.  Wm.  B.  Fowle  not  to  dispose  of,  without  first 
offering  it  to  him,  not  having  first  ofliered  the  same  to  said  Fowle. 

Wholly  neglecting  and  omitting  (without  any  justifiable  excuse) 
to  furnish  Mr.  W.  W.  Clapp,  one  of  his  parishioners,  with  letters 
from  him  while  in  Europe,  for  publication  in  the  Evening  Gazette, 
he  having  entered  into  a  written  agreement  so  to  do,  and  having 
received  from  said  Clapp  and  negotiated  his  acceptances  for  two 
hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  as  the  consideration  for  writing  said 
letters. 

Communicating  and  suff*ering  to  be  made  public,  and  to  be  pub- 
licly sold,  a  newly-invented  steel  hone,  which  Dr.  Bern  is,  the 
inventor,  had  intrusted  to  him  for  his  private  use,  upon  his  under- 
taking that  he  would  not  communicate  or  make  known  the  same. 

Claiming  as  his  own,  or  wilfully  permitting  the  invention  of 
said  hone  to  be  publicly  attributed  to  him  without  contradiction, 
he  well  knowing  that  the  same  was  not  invented  by  himself,  but 
by  said  Bemis. 

2 


▼I 


Seventh,  That  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has  been  wanting  in  that 

scrupulous  regard  for  truth  which  should  distinguish  a  Christian 

minister. 
Under  this  ground  of  complaint,  evidence  will  be  offered  of  Mr. 

Pierpont's  having  denied  expressions  and  remarks  made  by  him  in 

his  sermons,  and  upon  other  occasions  —  and  of  his  having  denied 

the  writing  of  a  certain  Theatrical  Prologue  or  other  compositions 

written  by  him. 

Eighth,  That  the  conduct  of  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has  not 
been  such  in  his  general  demeanor  as  to  promote  and  secure  peace 
and  harmony  in  his  Parish,  but  on  the  contrary  has  been  such  as 
to  foment  divisions  and  dissatisfactions  among  them,  which  can 
only  be  allayed  by  a  dissolution  of  the  connexion  between  him  and 
the  Parish. 

Ninth,  That  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has  in  his  preaching  and 
upon  other  occasions  manifested  a  want  of  that  decorum,  gravity, 
gentleness  and  discretion,  both  in  matter  and  in  manner,  which 
are  essential  to  the  usefulness  and  respectability  of  a  Christian 
minister. 


(Signed. 


JOSHUA  CRANE,         1 
JOHN  D.  WILLIAMS, 
DANIEL  WELD, 
RICHARDS  CHILD, 
WM.  W.  CLAPP, 
TIM.  TILESTON, 
WARREN  WHITE, 
RUEL  BAKER, 


Committee 

HolltS' Street 
Society. 


DEFENCE. 


Mr.  Moderator  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Council  : 

I  cannot  but  congratulate  you 
that  this  protracted  examination  is  drawing  to  a  close. 
Nothing  now  remains  but  to  sum  up  the  evidence  upon 
the  one  side  and  the  other,  before  the  cause  will  be 
submitted  to  you  for  your  final  determination. 

But  in  doing  this  in  behalf  of  my  friend,  tlie  respon- 
dent, I  feel,  for  many  reasons,  no  ordinary  degree  of 
embarrassment.  I  stand  in  the  place  of  another  who 
addressed  you  in  an  earlier  stage  of  these  proceed- 
ings, and  whose  distinguished  ability  you  yourselves 
have  witnessed.  Not  only  so,  but  I  stand  opposed  to 
two  gentlemen  whose  learning  and  power  have  justly 
raised  them  to  the  eminent  rank  they  sustain  at  one  of 
the  first  bars  in  the  country. 

I  stand,  too,  for  the  first  time  before  such  a  tribunal 
as  I  am  now  called  on  to  address,  and  am  alike  inexpe- 
rienced in  what  is  due  to  the  body  before  which  I  ap- 
pear, or  the  cause  which  has  been  intrusted  to  me. 


8 


I  see  before  me  a  tribunal  venerable  by  historical 
association,  which  has  survived  the  separation  of 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  power  which  once  prevailed 
here,  not  so  much  by  the  aid  of  the  law,  as  by  the  force 
of  its  own  moral  strength ;  and  I  cannot  but  reflect  how 
much  the  future  maintenance  of  our  churches  and  re- 
ligious institutions  depends  upon  the  integrity  and  the 
independence  of  such  tribunals  as  has  here  convened. 

I  cannot  overlook  the  character  of  the  parties  before 
you,  nor  the  nature  of  the  charges  which  you  have  been 
called  upon  to  investigate.  On  the  one  side  are  men 
of  wealth  and  powerful  alliance,  moving  in  an  elevated 
rank  in  hfe,  and  commanding  a  wide  circle  of  influ- 
ence around  them.  On  the  other,  a  clergyman  long 
and  widely  known  at  home  and  abroad  for  his  hterary 
and  religious  character.  And  not  only  he,  but  in  his 
fate  are  involved  the  wishes,  and  hopes,  and  interests  of 
a  large  body  of  worshippers,  who  look  to  him  as  their 
spiritual  guide  and  teacher. 

The  charges,  moreover,  upon  which  you  are  to  pass, 
involve  the  moral  and  religious  character  of  a  minister 
of  the  gospel,  who  for  more  than  twenty  years  has  bro- 
ken at  this  altar  the  Bread  of  Life,  and  who  is  by  your 
decision  to  be  restored  to  his  flock,  or  cut  off*  with  cen- 
sure and  disgrace. 

If,  then,  in  view  of  all  these,  I  enter  upon  the  duty 
before  me  with  misgiving  and  distrust,  you  will  not  as- 
cribe it  to  any  apprehension  I  may  have  of  the  justice 
of  my  cause,  the  integrity  or  purity  of  the  tribunal,  or 
the  final  issue  to  which  this  Council  and  the  world  may 


come  upon  the  subject,  but  to  the  fear  I  feel  that  I  may 
not  be  able  to  present  this  cause  in  all  its  true  hghts 
and  bearings,  or  may  fail  to  do  justice  to  one  who  in 
selecting  me  as  his  advocate,  has  suffered  his  feelings 
as  a  friend  to  outweigh  his  judgment  as  a  party. 

Before  entering  upon  the  examination  of  the  evi- 
dence, I  wish  to  express  the  sense  of  acknowledgment 
I  feel  in  behalf  of  my  friend,  for  the  manner  in  which, 
though  called  as  an  ex-parte  Council  originally,  you 
have  generously  proffered  your  services  in  adjusting  the 
difficulties  existing  between  these  parties,  and  for  the 
patience,  faithfulness,  candor  and  impartiahty  with 
which  you  have  performed  the  irksome  and  unwelcome 
duties  which  have  thus  devolved  upon  you. 

Attempts  have  been  made  by  gathering  up  and  re- 
peating here  expressions  of  the  respondent  in  regard  to 
the  restraints  under  which  his  brethren  were  placed  in 
their  pulpits,  to  excite  prejudices  in  the  minds  of  the 
Council  —  for  I  cannot  see  why  else  the  evidence  was 
introduced.  But  I  have  no  fear  that  any  unguarded 
expression  of  that  kind,  uttered  in  the  ardor  of  discus- 
sion, though  carefully  treasured  up  and  now  brought 
forward  by  witnesses,  will  influence  the  judgment  of  a 
single  member  of  this  Board  ;  for  with  men  of  honora- 
ble minds,  personal  feelings  will  never  be  suffered  to 
come  in  conflict  with  their  duty  or  their  self-respect. 

I  have  never  for  a  moment  suffered  myself  to  doubt 
that,  if  from  any  cause,  feehngs  other  than  perfect  kind- 
ness ever  existed  in  the  minds  of  any  of  the  Council 
towards  either  party,  they  would  be  laid  aside  in  judg- 


10 


ing  of  the  merits  of  this  case,  and  that  the  great  pur- 
poses of  truth  and  justice  would  alone  be  regarded. 

In  that  confidence  I  have  gone  on,  and  when  the  pub- 
lic come  to  review,  as  certainly  they  will,  the  judgment 
of  this  body,  I  cannot  doubt  that  their  result  will  show 
that  this  confidence  has  not  been  misplaced. 

In  pursuing  the  examination  before  you,  I  propose 
to  inquire,  1st,  What  powers  this  Council,  as  an  investi- 
gating tribunal,  possess,  and  of  what  charges  they  may 
take  cognizance ;  2d,  What  the  charges  are  to  which 
the  respondent  is  called  to  answer,  and  how  far,  if  at 
all,  these  have  been  sustained  by  evidence ;  and  3d, 
What  the  duty  of  tlie  Council  is  in  view  of  the  whole 
case  before  them. 

By  referring  to  the  various  decisions  of  our  Courts, 
in  which  the  powers  and  duties  of  ecclesiastical  coun- 
cils have  been  under  consideration,  it  will  be  found  that 
the  matters  cognizable  by  such  bodies,  when  properly 
constituted,  are  of  two  classes,  viz :  such  as  work  a  for- 
feiture of  ofiice  by  a  minister,  and  such  as  authorize 
a  council  to  interpose  between  the  parties  by  the  way 
of  advice. 

Indeed,  no  council  can  dissolve  the  connexion  be- 
tween a  people  and  their  pastor.  The  effect  of  their 
result  is  this :  If  they  find  him  guilty  of  such  offences 
as  would  justify  such  a  dissolution,  their  finding  will  be 
taken  as  true,  and  the  civil  courts  will  give  effect  to  it 
by  releasing  the  parish  from  any  further  obligation  to 
support  such  minister.  To  liken  these  proceedings  to 
those  in  civil  courts,  the  "  result  ^^  of  a  mutual  ecclesi- 


11 


astical  council  is  to  be  regarded  like  the  verdict  of  a 
jury,  upon  which  the  court  enter  up  a  judgment,  which 
is  binding  upon  the  parties. 

In  the  first  class  of  these  offences,  viz.  such  as  work 
a  forfeiture  of  the  ministerial  relation,  are  embraced, 
an  essential  change  of  doctrine,  a  wilful  neglect  of 
duty,  and  immoral  or  criminal  conduct,  such  as  habit- 
ual intemperance,  lying,  unchaste  and  immodest  be- 
havior. In  the  second  of  these  classes,  are  included 
imprudence,  folly,  censoriousness,  a  spirit  of  persecu- 
tion, and  the  like.  These,  though  enumerated  by  the 
court,  are  rather,  however,  put  by  the  way  of  illustra- 
tion, than  as  limiting  and  defining  the  precise  offences 
which  a  council  may  consider. 

It  has  been  much  insisted  upon  by  the  complainants, 
during  this  trial,  that  regard  is  only  to  be  had  to  the 
rights  of  the  corporation,  made  up  of  the  proprietors  of 
pews,  and  that  none  other  than  those  who  hold  title- 
deeds  to  the  seats  which  you  now  occupy,  have  a  right 
to  be  considered  when  the  Council  come  to  make  up 
their  result 

If  such  a  narrow,  technical  rule  is  to  be  applied  for 
a  moment,  it  must  be  only  in  regard  to  the  first  class 
of  offences  above  enumerated,  for,  as  the  pew-owners 
lay  their  claims  upon  the  ground  that  they  only  are 
responsible  to  pay  the  salary  of  the  clergyman,  they 
can  have  Httle  to  do  with  what  does  not  go  to  release 
them  from  this  liability.  Whereas,  the  second  class  of 
offences,  as  well  as  the  first,  aflfect  the  feelings  and  rights 
of  every  worshipper  here,  whether  he  owns  the  pew 
that  he  occupies,  or  holds  it  as  the  tenant  of  another. 


12 


Both  classes  of  offences  have  been  charged  against 
tlie  respondent,  and  consequently  the  Council  are 
bound,  if  tliey  regard  the  general  rules  of  law  as  their 
guide,  to  consider  the  bearing  which  their  result  must 
have  upon  the  great  body  of  the  worshippers  here,  as 
well  as  upon  those  who  can  produce  parchment  evi- 
dence of  their  interest  in  the  question. 

The  parties,  however,  to  this  controversy,  did  not 
choose  to  leave  to  mere  legal  implication,  of  what  this 
Council  should  take  cognizance.  They  have  confined 
themselves  and  the  Council  to  the  "  grounds  of  com- 
plaint" of  the  27th  July,  1840,  "  as  reasons  for  dissolv- 
ing "  the  connexion  of  Mr.  Pierpont  with  his  parish. 
This  agreement,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  framed  after 
much  discussion,  and  many  impediments  in  the  way  of 
organizing  a  council  had  been  removed  by  its  adop- 
tion. And  by  it,  both  parties  must  have  understood, 
the  Council  are  to  be  governed. 

The  question,  therefore,  as  I  understand  it,  is  not 
whether  you  shall  subject  Mr.  Pierpont  to  censure  or 
advice,  still  suffering  him  to  retain  his  relation  as 
pastor,  but  whether  these  "  grounds  "  and  the  proofs 
offered  to  sustain  them,  furnish  sufficient  "  reasons  for 
dissolving  his  connexion  with  the  parish." 

These  I  regard  the  legal  rights  of  my  friend,  so  far 
as  this  investigation  extends.  But  I  should  regret  to 
have  it  thought  that  I  wished  to  place  the  defence 
upon  mere  technical  ground ;  and  therefore,  as  the 
evidence  has  covered  much  of  the  respondent's  life,  I 
shall  endeavor  to  go  into  the  subject  in  its  broadest 


IS 


extent,  and  to  satisfy  the  Council  and  the  public  that, 
in  no  sense,  has  the  respondent  been  obnoxious  to  the 
charges  that  have  been  fabricated  against  him. 

The  object  of  one  party  here  is  to  release  themselves 
from  a  contract,  into  which  they  entered  with  the  other 
party  more  than  twenty  years  since  ;  a  contract,  which, 
as  it  is  unlimited  in  its  terms,  has  been  held  by  our 
courts  to  be  binding  upon  the  parish  until  the  minister 
shall  have  done  something  whereby  he  has  forfeited 
the  right  to  enforce  it.  And  one  obvious  reason  for 
such  a  construction  is,  that  a  minister  may  be  left 
reasonably  free  to  utter  his  sentiments,  without  fear 
that  by  so  doing  he  shall  be  sacrificed  to  the  sudden 
caprice  of  angry  and  excited  parishioners. 

Here,  then,  the  question  arises,  have  the  complain- 
ants shown  enough  to  justify  the  dissolution  of  their 
contract  with  Mr.  Pierpont,  against  his  consent  ? 

In  regard  to  the  first  subdivision  of  the  first  class  of 
offences  above  enumerated,  —  his  doctrines  and  belief, 
—  nothing  has  been  charged  or  proved  against  him ; 
but  in  relation  to  immoral  conduct  and  neglect  of  duty, 
they  are  made  the  subjects  of  charge,  and  an  attempt 
has  been  made  to  sustain  these  charges  by  proofs. 

The  charges  against  the  respondent,  though  spread 
upon  the  record  under  nine  different  heads,  may  be 
considered  as  of  three  distinct  classes,  and  in  that  order 
I  propose  to  consider  them. 

First,  Those  affecting  his  moral  integrity,  purity,  and 
honesty 

3 


14 


Second,  Those  relating  to  the  performance  of  his 
ministerial  duties ;  and 

Third,  Those  affecting  his  temper,  manners,  and  dis- 
cretion as  a  minister,  comprising  his  general  suitable- 
ness for  the  office. 

In  pursuing  this  general  order,  I  desire  also  to  have 
another  division  regarded,  in  your  inquiries,  and  that 
is,  in  respect  to  time,  —  prior  and  subsequent  to  1838. 
That  will  be  found  to  be  an  essential  epoch  in  regard 
to  the  events  which  you  are  to  consider,  and  out  of  it 
grows  much  that  will  serve  to  explain  tlie  whole  case 
before  you. 

One  thing  I  may  remark  in  this  early  stage  of  your 
inquiries,  that  during  the  difficulties  and  agitations  in 
the  Parish  in  1 838,  the  idea  of  charging  Mr.  Pierpont 
with  a  want  of  moral  integrity  was  never  broached. 
The  members  of  the  committee,  who  in  that  year  spent 
three  whole  evenings  in  gathering  up  and  discussing 
with  Mr.  Pierpont  the  causes  of  offence  against  him, 
did  not  then  and  do  not  now  charge  him  with  a  want 
of  purity  or  of  moral  integrity.  It  is  since  then  that  the 
Proprietors  have  dragged  the  current  of  his  whole  life 
as  with  a  net,  and  have  spread  its  entire  contents  be- 
fore the  Council.  Every  one,  though  he  be  a  stranger 
to  these  difficulties,  has  been  courted  and  invited  to 
bring  and  cast  into  the  cauldron  which  they  have  been 
seething,  his  own  share  of  bitter  herbs,  with  which  to 
give  malignity  to  the  compound.  And  Dr.  Bemis  and 
Mr.  Fowle  have  been  ready  to  obey  this  call ;  but  with 
what  success  the  sequel  may  determine. 


16 


I  do  not  propose  to  recapitulate  the  mass  of  evidence 
which  has  been  submitted  to  you.  The  most  I  can  do 
will  be  to  refer  to  it  generally,  as  it  bears  upon  the 
different  charges,  to  which  I  will  now  proceed  to  call 
your  attention. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  charge  of  Indelicacy,  of 
which  it  is  alleged  the  respondent  has  been  guilty,  in 
his  pulpit  and  elsewhere,  to  the  mortification  and  dis- 
gust of  his  female  hearers. 

I  notice  this  charge  first,  because,  if  it  is  true,  you 
need  go  no  further  ;  the  respondent  ought  not  only  to 
be  expelled  from  his  pulpit,  but  to  be  scouted  from  all 
decent  society.  If  there  is  any  one  thing  that  renders 
a  clergyman  more  unfit  for  that  sacred  office  than 
another,  it  is  the -want  of  moral  purity.  There  is  some- 
thing so  revolting  in  the  very  idea,  that  the  man  who 
comes  into  our  families  in  the  interesting  and  almost 
sacred  relation  of  pastor  —  in  seasons  of  joy  and  of  sor- 
row ;  in  the  sick  chamber  and  the  most  private  intimacy 
of  unsuspecting  confidence  —  can  be  impure  in  thought 
and  indelicate  in  language,  that  no  man  can  tolerate  it 
for  a  moment. 

The  charge  in  this  case  is  a  grave  one.  It  has  been 
seriously  made,  but  how  has  it  been  sustained  ? 

It  rests  for  its  support,  principally,  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Crane. 

From  the  testimony  of  this  and  other  witnesses,  it 
appears,  that,  many  years  ago,  Mr.  Pierpont,  in  a  speech 
that  he  made  at  a  public  meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall,  used 
one  ward  in  describing  a  particular  class  of  vices,  which, 


16 


to  the  sensitive  ear  of  Mr.  Crane,  sounded  indelicate. 
And  yet  that  word,  which  need  not  be  repeated  here, 
is  often  found  in  the  Bible,  and  is  uttered  by  every 
preacher  of  the  gospel,  when  he  reads  that  book  from 
the  sacred  desk. 

There  were,  besides  this,  two  sermons  testified  of  by 
the  same  witness ;  and  the  one  to  which  Mr.  Hay  ob- 
jected more  than  the  other,  was  that  in  which  Mr. 
Pierpont,  speaking  of  the  state  of  the  Catholic  Church 
in  Europe,  alluded  to  the  celibacy  of  the  Catholic 
clergy,  in  the  following  language :  "  They  are  the 
best  fed  and  best  clothed  of  any  class,  and  have  passions 
like  other  men." 

Here  are  the  offensive  words,  and  I  have  ventured, 
even  at  the  charge  of  indelicacy  myself,  to  repeat 
them,  though  I  see  around  me  an  audience,  which  I 
know  embraces  as  refined  and  delicate  minds  as  can 
be  found  in  this  or  any  other  city ;  and  I  will  venture 
to  ask,  wherein  consists  the  indelicacy  charged  ?  Was 
this  an  improper  subject  to  allude  to  ?  If  so,  what  is 
to  become  of  the  Dudleian  Lectures  in  the  venerable 
halls  of  Harvard,  as  well  as  every  day's  discussion,  in 
literary  and  religious  circles,  of  the  merits  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church  and  its  institutions  ? 

In  regard  to  the  other  sermon,  it  appears  that  he 
alluded,  in  the  course  of  it,  to  his  having  been  upon  the 
same  spot  where  Paul  had  stood  in  Corinth,  and  as  he 
contemplated  the  ruins  of  that  proud  city,  he  naturally 
reverted  to  its  former  splendor,  and  the  causes  of  its 
decline  and  ruin.     He  ascribed  it  to  its  luxury  and  its 


17 


vices,  and  in  describing  the  extent  to  which  these  were 
carried  in  the  days  of  its  prosperity,  he  cited  from  a 
commentator  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  or  as 
Mr.  Hay  says,  stated,  "  it  is  narrated,"  that  the  favors 
of  a  single  celebrated  courtesan  were  rewarded  by  an 
immense  sum  in  gold. 

This  may  have  been  an  unfortunate  illustration.  But 
every  scholar  knows  that  the  extent  to  which  vice  was 
carried  in  Corinth  made  her  infamous  even  in  a  corrupt 
age.  And  is  it  wonderful,  that  as  the  picture  of  that 
city  rose  in  his  mind,  and  he  stood  in  imagination 
among  its  crumbled  monuments  of  art,  its  broken 
columns  and  ruined  temples,  he  should  have  referred 
back  to  the  vice  and  profligacy  that  had  wrought  out 
this  destruction  ?  "  To  the  pure  every  thing  is  pure," 
and  in  the  unconscious  purity  of  his  own  mind,  he  never 
dreamed  that  a  simple  historical  illustration  like  that, 
could  raise  the  idea  of  indelicacy  in  the  prurient  imag- 
ination of  any  one. 

Has  he  been  impure,  or  has  his  preaching  or  inter- 
course with  his  people  lowered  the  standard  of  moral 
purity  in  his  society  ?  The  witnesses  who  have  been 
called  by  the  complainants  themselves,  have  answered 
this,  question.  Mr.  Hay,  Mr.  Smith,  and  Deacon 
Bass,  one  and  all,  deny  it  unqualifiedly,  and  do  justice 
to  the  respondent  in  this  respect. 

And  how  has  it  been  regarded  by  his  people  ?  No 
man  ever  whispered  a  complaint  on  the  subject  to  Mr. 
Pierpont.  At  the  earher  meetings  of  committees, 
when  every  charge  was  brought  forward  that  was  then 


18 


known,  not  an  allusion  to  this  was  made.  The  offence, 
if  it  ever  took  place,  must  have  happened  soon  or 
immediately  after  his  return  from  Europe,  in  1836; 
and  yet  the  first  time  that  it  is  charged,  is  in  April, 
1840.  True  delicacy  is  something  that  shrinks,  in- 
stinctively, at  what  is  coarse,  or  vulgar,  or  indecent. 
It  does  not  require  three  years'  brooding  over  an 
expression,  in  order  to  determine  whether  it  has  been 
offended  by  it  or  not. 

There  is  yet  another  test  by  which  to  determine  the 
truth  of  this  charge.  This  Council  need  not  be  told, 
that  there  is  in  Hollis-Street  Society,  as  much  female 
delicacy,  purity,  and  sensibility,  as  in  any  that  can  be 
named ;  and  in  this,  let  it  be  understood,  I  mean  to 
embrace  the  wives  and  daughters  of  the  opponents  of 
Mr.  Pierpont.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the 
assumed  dehcacy  of  some  of  the  witnesses,  there  has 
not  been  a  word  to  implicate  the  entire  delicacy  and 
purity  of  those  with  whom  they  are  connected  And 
yet  what  female  ever  left  this  society  on  account  of 
Mr.  Pierpont's  preaching  ?  Mr.  Everett  was  desirous 
of  leaving,  while  his  wife  chose  to  remain.  The  wife 
of  Mr.  Crane  continued  to  attend  here,  even  against 
his  wishes,  after  he  had  ceased  to  be  willing  himself  to 
listen  to  the  respondent ;  and  though  there  are  many 
female  proprietors  of  pews  here,  there  is  not  one  of 
them  who  is  now  opposed  to  him  in  this  controversy. 
Can  the  Proprietors  have  seen  in  what  situation  they 
place  themselves,  by  bringing  forward  this  charge  ? 
Are  they  willing,  in  order  to  carry  out  their  feelings  of 


19 


hostility  against  Mr.  Pierpont,  to  try  to  bring  reproach 
on  their  own  wives  and  daughters  ? 

Fortunately  for  them,  they  have  failed ;  but  the 
spirit  which  prompted  a  charge  so  cruel  and  so  pitiful, 
ought  to  meet  with  the  rebuke  of  every  pure-minded 
and  honest  man. 

But  there  is  one  other  part  of  this  charge  which 
ought  not  to  be  entirely  passed  over,  especially  since 
the  Proprietors  have  attempted  to  support  it  by  evi- 
dence, and  that  is,  his  allusion  "  to  certain  supposed 
phrenological  organs,  in  one  or  more  lectures,"  &c. 

This  charge,  too,  is  of  a  modern  date,  although  the 
offence  must  have  occurred  some  years  since.  It  has 
been  testified,  that  Mr.  Pierpont,  pursuant  to  a  pubhc 
notice,  gave  a  lecture  on  phrenology  in  Quincy,  and 
that,  in  alluding  to  the  organs  which  have  their  lo- 
cality in  the  back  part  of  the  head  and  neck,  remark- 
ed that  "they  all  knew  tlie  difference  there  was 
between  the  shape  of  the  necks "  of  two  animals 
which  he  named,  and  that  "  that  was  all  he  need  to  say 
on  the  subject." 

Now  here,  he  was  dehvering  a  scientific  lecture,  and 
spoke  of  a  scientific  fact ;  and  could  he  have  done  so 
in  less  objectionable  terms  ?  If  one  were  to  attend  a 
lecture  on  anatomy,  would  he  charge  the  lecturer 
with  violating  the  rules  of  decency,  for  merely  speak- 
ing of  the  human  body  ? 

And  so  far  from  being,  like  the  Proprietors  of  Hollis- 
Street  Church,  shocked  at  this  violation  of  propriety, 
the  very  people  who  heard  that  lecture,  have  repeated- 


20 


ly  employed  Mr.  Pierpont  to  lecture  since,  before 
their  Lyceum,  where  they  with  their  neighbors  and 
families  unreservedly  mingle  together. 

Such  is  the  evidence  on  which  this  charge  of  indel- 
icacy rests  ;  and  I  should  feel  that  I  was  wasting  your 
time  if  I  dwelt  any  longer  on  so  groundless,  although 
so  malignant  an  imputation  against  the  respondent. 

The  next  charge  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  atten- 
tion, is  that  affecting  the  charax:ter  of  the  respondent 
for  Veracity. 

The  Proprietors  have  set  forth  as  specifications 
under  this  general  charge,  that  he  has  "  denied  expres- 
sions and  remarks  made  by  him  in  his  sermons,  and 
upon  other  occasions ;  "  but  not  only  have  they  failed 
to  prove  this  —  they  have  not  even,  that  I  can  recall, 
offered  any  evidence  in  regard  to  it. 

They  have,  however,  under  the  general  license  given 
them  by  the  Council  to  offer  proofs  to  sustain  their 
general  charges,  undertaken  to  show,  from  the  corres- 
pondence between  Mr.  Pierpont  and  themselves,  which 
has  been  published  by  his  permission  and  approbation, 
that  he  has  made  a  false  statement  in  relation  to  his 
wilUnsness  and  offer  to  refer  the  difficulties  between 
them  to  a  mutual  council,  and  also  in  stating  that  they 
rejected  this  offer. 

Before  proceeding  to  examine  the  evidence  on  this 
point,  I  may  be  indulged  in  the  remark,  that  it  would  be 
somewhat  singular,  if,  while  his  enemies  were  leaving 
no  stone  unturned  to  find  matter  of  accusation  against 
him,  he  not  only  should  have  put  into  their  hands  a 


21 


statement  which  was  false,  but  that  he  should  have 
pubhshed  the  same,  and  with  it,  the  very  documents 
by  which  its  falsehood  could  be  at  once  established. 
And  the  presumption  would  naturally  arise  in  the  mind 
of  any  candid  man,  that  there  must  be  some  error, 
to  say  the  least,  in  the  construction  which  the  papers 
ought  to  receive,  if  such  is  the  apparent  meaning  of 
the  lanoruage  there  used. 

Now  the  facts  in  regard  to  this  matter,  as  they  appear 
from  the  printed  documents,  in  connexion  with  Mr. 
Boyd's  testimony,  are  these.  In  one  of  Mr.  Pierpont's 
letters,  he  states  that  his  zeal  in  the  Temperance 
cause  was  "the  head  and  front  of  his  offending." 
The  Proprietors  by  their  vote  denied  this ;  and  on  the 
7th  of  October,  1 839,  Mr.  Pierpont  in  a  letter  to  them 
states  that  that  is  the  true  issue  between  them,  and 
proposes  to  refer  the  trial  of  that  issue  to  a  mutual 
council.  At  the  same  time  that  he  wrote  this  letter, 
he  wrote  and  put  into  Mr.  Boyd's  hands  the  form  of 
certain  votes  to  be  presented,  at  the  same  time  with 
the  letter,  to  the  Proprietors,  for  them  to  act  upon, 
embracing,  among  other  propositions,  a  mutual  council 
to  decide,  "  whether  by  reason  of  any  thing  that  he 
has  done  or  left  undone,  in  relation  to  that  cause 
(Temperance)  or  any  other  cause,  the  connexion 
between  him  and  his  society  ought  to  be  dissolved. 
And  if  for  any  cause  whatever  that  connexion  ought  to 
be  dissolved,  what  are  the  terras  and  conditions  upon 
which  a  dissolution  shall  take  place." 
4 


22 


This  was  referred  to  a  committee  of  the  Proprietors, 
who  reported  against  the  proposition  of  "  choosing  a 
council,"  "there  being,  in  our  opinion,  nothing  for 
such  a  tribunal  to  settle."  This  took  place  on  the  14th 
of  October ;  and  without  any  final  action  upon  either 
proposition,  the  meeting  was  adjourned.  In  the  mean 
time,  a  minority  of  the  committee,  who  were  friendly 
to  Mr.  Pierpont,  addressed  to  him  a  communication,  in 
which,  among  other  things,  they  say :  "  Had  the  society 
consented  to  adopt  your  suggestion,  that  of  submitting 
all  the  matters  of  grievance  to  a  mutual  council,  you 
could  then  have  had  an  opportunity  of  meeting  those 
or  any  other  charges  in  a  customary  manner ;  but  as 
the  majority  of  the  committee  advise  against  any 
council,  it  is  to  be  supposed  their  advice  will  prevail." 
And  in  the  result,  the  proposal  was  never  accepted. 
Now  I  understand  the  matter  charged  against  Mr. 
Pierpont  as  false,  is  in  his  communication  to  the 
minority  of  the  committee,  of  October  22,  1839, 
(page  44  of  the  printed  documents,)  and  in  his  remon- 
strance against  the  proceeding  of  an  exparte  council, 
(page  4,)  and  is  as  follows :  "  In  my  first  letter  in  reply 
to  your  doings  in  relation  to  me,  which  letter  is  of  date 
September  16,  I  tendered  you  an  issue  as  to  the  main- 
spring or  moving  cause  of  your  annual  proceedings 
against  me.  In  reply  to  that  letter,  viz :  in  the  pream- 
ble to  your  votes  at  your  meeting,  September  30,  you 
distinctly  take  that  issue.  In  my  second  letter,  dated 
October  7,  I  demand  a  mutual  council  to  try  that  issue 
and  to  settle  all  matters  in  controversy  between  ue. 


23 


Appended  to  that  letter,  and  offered  for  your  consider- 
ation immediately  after  it,  by  Mr.  James  Boyd,  at  my 
request,  were  the  preamble  and  votes,  of  which  he 
gives  the  copy." 

In  the  latter  of  these  documents,  he  says  :  "A  year 
ago  last  October,  at  their  meeting  on  tlie  7th  of  that 
month,  I  tendered  to  the  Proprietors  of  HoUis-Street 
Meeting  House  a  mutual  council,  'whose  decision 
should  be  conclusive,  final,  and  forever  binding  upon 
both  parties,'  among  other  matters,  upon  these  two 
points,  namely,"  then  reciting  the  two  votes  offered 
by  Mr.  Boyd,  already  stated  above,  and  adds  "this 
proposal  was  rejected."  The  falsehood  is  now  under- 
stood to  consist,  according  to  the  Proprietors'  construc- 
tion, in  saying  that  in  his  letter  by  Mr.  Boyd,  he 
demanded  a  mutual  council  "  to  settle  all  matters  in 
controversy;"  in  saying  that  the  "preamble  and 
votes  "  were  "  appended  to  that  letter ;"  and  in  saying 
that  he  tendered  a  proposal  for  a  mutual  council,  in 
the  form  embraced  in  the  votes  offered  by  Mr.  Boyd, 
and  that  "  this  proposal  was  rejected." 

Who  can  read  this  correspondence  without  feeling 
that  every  word  therein  contained  is  in  substance  and 
spirit  true  ?  It  is  not  pretended  that  the  paper  on 
which  the  votes  were  written  was  actually  united  with 
the  letter  by  a  needle  and  thread,  nor  that  the  whole  of 
the  proposition  was  in  the  letter.  But  both  papers 
were  made  at  one  and  the  same  time,  they  related  to 
one  and  the  same  matter,  and  were  to  be  acted  upon 
at  one  and  the  same  meeting ;  they  were  handed  to  Mr. 


24 


Boyd  at  the  same  time,  and  offered  to  the  Proprietors 
together.  What  but  the  most  downright  hypercriticism 
could  torture  the  statement  of  this  transaction,  as 
given  by  Mr.  Pierpont,  into  a  misrepresentation  ?  It 
was  never  intended  to  be  any  thing  more  than  a  gen- 
eral summary  of  the  transactions  between  them,  and 
as  such  it  is  manifestly  a  true  one.  But  it  is  said,  that 
he  affirms  that  the  "  proposal  was  rejected,"  when  in 
fact  no  such  vote  was  ever  passed.  In  technical  nicety 
this  may  be  so ;  but  in  regard  to  a  proposition  like  this, 
to  common  minds,  the  fact  of  the  Proprietors  not  hav- 
ing accepted  would  justify  the  assertion,  that  it  had 
been  rejected.  Such  was  the  construction  put  by  Mr. 
Pierpont  on  these  several  papers  and  transactions ;  and 
he  is  willing  to  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  candid 
minds,  if  for  this  he  can  be  chargeable  with  a  want  of 
truth. 

It  has  been  pretended  that  Mr.  Pierpont  has  been 
guilty  of  disingenuousness,  or  want  of  truth,  in  regard 
to  the  reading  of  notices  from  his  pulpit,  because,  after 
having  said  he  would  read  none  until  they  had  been 
submitted  to  the  standing  committee,  he  violated  his 
engagement.  The  facts,  as  they  have  come  out  in  evi- 
dence, are  these.  His  pulpit  had  become  a  sort  of 
advertising  post,  and  he  wished  to  remedy  this  evil.  On 
one  occasion  he  declined  reading  a  paper  that  had  been 
offered  to  him,  and  it  was  suspected  and  understood  to 
be  a  Colonization  notice,  though  no  one  saw  it,  nor  has 
any  person  complained  that  it  was  not  read.  He  at  the 
same  time  stated  that  all  such  notices  would  thereafter 


25 


be  submitted  to  the  committee  for  approbation.  About 
six  months  after  this,  a  notice  for  an  Abohtion  meeting 
was  handed  to  him,  and  he  gave  it  to  the  sexton  to 
show  to  the  committee  Two  only  were  present.  On 
presenting  it  to  Mr.  Everett,  he  dechned  deciding  upon 
it,  saying  that  "  he  might  do  as  he  pleased ;  "  but  Mr. 
Parker  objected  to  its  being  read.  The  sexton  re- 
turned with  the  paper  to  Mr.  Pierpont ;  but  which  of 
these  messages  was  communicated  to  him  cannot  be 
shown.  Mr.  Pierpont  thereupon  proceeded  to  read 
the  notice.  But  when  the  next  notice  for  a  similar 
meeting  was  submitted  to  the  committee,  they  decided 
against  its  being  read,  and  in  this  he  acquiesced.  After 
this,  another  notice  was  refused  by  them,  which  led  to 
a  discussion  between  the  committee  and  the  individual, 
Mr.  Jackson,  who  had  requested  it  to  be  read;  and 
from  that  time  the  committee  gave  the  pastor  to  under- 
stand that  they  should  act  no  more  upon  the  subject. 

From  these  facts,  which  is  the  fairest  to  infer,  —  that 
in  reading  the  notice  which  he  did,  he  acted  from  the 
report  of  the  sexton  from  Mr.  Everett,  that  "  he  might 
do  as  he  pleased,"  or  from  Mr.  Parker,  that  it  should 
not  be  read  ?  If  he  had  made  up  his  mind  to  read  it 
notwithstanding  the  objections  of  the  committee,  would 
he  have  submitted  it  at  all  ?  or  if  he  disregarded  their 
wishes  to  this  extent,  would  he  have  yielded,  when  to 
the  next  application  they  returned  a  negative  answer  ? 

Did  he  in  fact  ever  read  one  notice  that  he  did  not 
submit  to  the  committee  ?  or  did  he  ever  read  one  no- 
tice that  he  did  not  suppose  they  had  assented  to  ? 


26 


Must  not  a  cause  be  a  desperate  one  which  requires 
the  resort  to  a  matter  hke  this  to  find  its  support  ? 

In  tracing  along  the  line  of  these  charges,  the  next 
in  order,  under  the  allegation  of  a  want  of  "  scrupulous 
regard  for  truth,"  is,  "his  having  denied  the  writing  of 
a  certain  Theatrical  Prologue,  written  by  him." 

Whoever  was  the  author  of  that  prologue,  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  it  was  written  many  years  since, 
at  the  opening  of  the  Tremont  Theatre,  when  public 
sentiment  in  regard  to  such  amusements  was  different 
from  what  it  is  now.  The  time  was,  that  clergymen 
themselves  did  not  feel  reproach  for  even  attending 
theatrical  performances.  But  the  charge  is  not  for 
writing,  but  for  denying  the  authorship  after  having 
written  it. 

The  inconsistency  of  this  charge  with  the  others 
that  are  brought  against  Mr.  Pierpont,  must  be  appa- 
rent :  while  in  one  part  of  these  criminations  he  is  rep- 
resented as  too  bold,  too  independent  of  the  world's 
opinion,  disregarding  alike  the  wishes  of  his  friends  and 
the  laws  of  prudence,  in  thinking  and  uttering  his 
thoughts,  in  this  he  is  charged  with  skulking  from  the 
light,  and  cowardly  denying  his  own  act ! 

There  are,  of  course,  two  questions  to  be  determined 
under  this  charge  :  1st,  Did  he  write  the  prologue?  for 
if  he  did  not,  he  had  a  right  to  deny  it ;  and  2nd,  Did 
he  deny  it?  for  if  he  did  not,  it  is  of  no  consequence 
whether  he  wrote  it  or  not. 

In  regard  to  the  first  question,  you  have  only  to  im- 
agine the  same  confidence  to  have  existed  between  Mr. 


27 


Pierpont  and  the  real  author,  that  there  was  between 
him  and  Mr.  Buckingham,  in  order  to  reach  an  expla- 
nation of  every  thing  he  did.  He  was  under  no  obhga- 
tion  to  disclose  whether  he  was  or  was  not  the  author. 
I  do  not  mean  to  claim  the  license  for  which  Dr. 
Johnson  and  Dr.  Paley  have  been  quoted,  that  an  author 
may  deny  the  truth  in  relation  to  the  authorship  of  a 
production,  if  he  wishes  this  to  be  concealed ;  there  is 
no  occasion  to  raise  such  a  question  of  casuistry  in  this 
case.  What  is  the  evidence  that  he  was  the  author,  or 
that  he  denied  it  ?  Mr.  Sprague  testified  that  he  said 
to  him  soon  after  the  prize  had  been  awarded,  "  it  is 
said  you  are  the  author ; "  to  which  Mr.  P.  rephed, 
"  I  have  not  written  two  lines  of  heroic  verse  these  two 
years."  Now,  unless  this  was  false,  the  charge  wholly 
fails.  And  Mr.  Sprague  says  that  he  "  considered  that, 
as  an  author,  he  was  disposed  to  evade  the  inquiry." 
And  certainly  he  might  properly  do  this,  if  he  did  not 
thereby  state  what  was  not  true. 

But  it  is  said  he  ou^ht  to  have  disclosed  whether  he 
was  the  author  or  not,  because  imputations  had  been 
cast  by  others  upon  the  committee  for  having  awarded 
the  prize  as  they  did.  A  mere  denial  of  the  authorship 
could  not  have  reUeved  the  committee  ;  and  besides,  if 
he  wished  or  was  bound  to  keep  this  a  secret,  how  could 
his  right  to  do  so  be  taken  away  by  the  unjustifiable 
acts  or  declarations  of  strangers  towards  the  committee  ? 

It  is  certainly  somewhat  remarkable  that  an  occur- 
rence of  some  fifteen  years  ago,  between  strangers  to 
the  present  controversy,  should  be  revived  by  the  Pro- 


28 


prietors  of  HoUis-Street  Meeting  House,  to  aid  them  in 
prosecuting  their  own  recent  personal  griefs.  I  know 
not  who  was  the  author  of  that  prologue,  but  the  evi- 
dence in  the  case  raises  the  most  satisfactory  probabil- 
ity that  it  was  not  the  respondent. 

It  is  manifest  that  whoever  wrote  it,  wished  to  keep 
its  authorship  concealed,  and  of  course  would,  so  far 
as  his  own  acts  went,  do  nothing  from  which  this  could 
be  ascertained.  This  will  apply  as  well  to  Mr.  Pier- 
pont,  if  he  had  been  the  author,  as  to  any  other  person. 
And  yet  we  find  him  going  to  Mr.  Buckingham  before 
the  prologue  had  been  offered,  stating  to  him  that  such 
an  one  might  be  offered,  and  asking  him  if  he  might  be 
trusted  with  it  as  a  confidential  friend ;  and  accordingly, 
soon  after  that  a  letter  and  the  prologue  were  sent,  both 
in  Mr.  Pierpont's  own  hand-writing,  which  was  familiar 
to  the  committee  to  whom  it  was  to  be  submitted,  and 
one  of  whom  had  for  years  been  an  inmate  in  his  family. 
The  prologue  gained  the  prize,  and  the  money  was 
paid  over  through  Mr.  Buckingham's  hands  to  Mr. 
Pierpont,  as  the  one  to  whom  it  was  understood  by  him 
it  should  be  paid,  if  it  should  prove  successful. 

The  hand-writing  of  the  production  satisfied  Mr. 
Bailey  that  Mr.  Pierpont  was  the  author,  and  he  so  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  to  Mr.  Sprague.  And  yet,  is  it  to 
be  conceived  that  if  Mr.  Pierpont  was  the  author,  and 
chose  to  keep  the  fact  concealed,  he  would  have  pre- 
sented the  paper  with  every  thing  but  his  own  name 
upon  it  to  mark  it  as  his  own  ? 

He  must  have  done  this  to  aid  a  friend,  and  having 


29 


his  friend's  secret  to  keep,  he  had  too  much  honor  to 
disclose  it. 

One  thing  is  true,  and  I  repeat  it  here  before  the 
very  altar  where  Mr.  Pierpont  has  so  long  ministered, 
whoever  was  the  author  of  that  production,  every  word 
that  Mr.  Pierpont  has  ever  uttered  in  relation  to  its  au- 
thorship, was  sacredly  true  in  spirit  and  in  letter.  And 
here  I  will  leave  the  charge. 

I  will  now  ask  you  to  turn  to  the  matter  of  the  Steel 
Hone.  The  evidence  in  regard  to  this  seems  to  have 
been  designed  to  embrace  two  specifications ;  one  that 
he  had  been  guilty  of  a  breach  of  confidence  towards 
Dr.  Bemis,  in  disclosing  the  existence  of  such  an  in- 
vention, and  the  other,  that  he  "  wilfully  permitted  him- 
self to  be  regarded  as  the  inventor." 

The  whole  charge  rests  upon  two  witnesses  —  Mr. 
Babbit  and  Dr.  Bemis,  inasmuch  as  the  Proprietors  have 
not  seen  fit  to  call  Mr.  Sproat,  to  whom  Mr.  Pierpont 
lent  his  hone  in  1829  or  30,  and  by  whom,  without  Mr. 
Pierpont's  knowledge,  it  was  shown  to  Mr.  Babbit. 
Mr.  Babbit  merely  stated  that  he  first  saw  the  instru- 
ment in  Mr.  Sproat's  hands,  in  Taunton,  in  1 829  or  30, 
that  he  made  fourteen  of  them,  without  the  knowledge 
of  Mr.  P.,  for  his  neighbors,  that  in  1831  Mr.  P.  called 
with  a  friend  at  his  shop  in  Taunton,  saw  one  of  his 
hones,  and  asked  him  to  make  him  one,  which  he  did, 
and  was  paid  for  so  doing  by  Mr.  P.,  that  after  that  time 
Mr.  P.,  having  discovered  a  better  kind  of  paste  to  use 
upon  the  hone,  communicated  it  to  Mr.  Babbit,  who  in 
1 832  made  some  of  the  hones,  with  the  newly-invented 
5 


50 


paste,  and  placed  them  in  Mr.  Ashton's  store  for  sale, 
and  that  Mr.  Pierpont  had  never  the  slightest  pecuni- 
ary interest  or  benefit  whatever  in  the  manufacture 
or  sale  of  the  hones. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  a  breach  of  confidence  was  con- 
cerned, the  case  rests  entirely  on  Dr.  Bemis ;  and, 
unfortunately  for  the  respondent,  that  witness  has  fixed 
the  times  when  these  confidential  communications  are 
said  to  have  been  had,  at  periods  when  no  other  person 
was  present,  and  much  of  the  pretended  confidence  is 
said  to  have  been  communicated  through  Deacon 
Brown,  who  is  dead.  And  the  Council  cannot  fail,  in 
this  connexion,  to  observe  how  much  of  the  evidence 
in  this  case  against  Mr.  Pierpont  depends  upon  wit- 
nesses long  since  dead,  and  papers  and  letters  which 
have,  accidentally,  been  lost. 

It  ought  to  be  understood,  that  so  far  as  any  confi- 
dence is  pretended  between  Mr.  Pierpont  and  Dr. 
Bemis,  the  respondent  denies  the  slightest  knowledge 
of  it.  How  does  Dr.  Bemis  sustain  this  charge  ?  He 
says,  that  in  1821,  now  twenty  years  ago,  he  had  a 
conversation  with  Mr.  Pierpont  in  relation  to  this  hone, 
which  he  had  invented  in  1811,  and  kept  secret  until 
about  that  time,  when  it  became  known  to  Deacon 
Brown  ;  that  Mr.  Pierpont  desired  permission  to  make 
one  of  these  for  a  dressing-case,  which  he  was  then  fit- 
ting up ;  that  he  gave  him  permission  to  make  one, 
told  him  he  could  go  to  a  Mr.  Davis's  and  purchase  a 
file,  and,  by  annealing  it,  he  could  work  off"  the  rough 
parts  of  the  file,  and  it  would  then  answer  his  purpose  ; 


31 


that  soon  after  this,  —  a  few  days  or  a  few  weeks,  he 
thinks,  —  Mr.  Pierpont  called  and  showed  him  a  cylin- 
drical razor-strop,  into  which  he  had  inserted  the  hone. 
The  razor-strop  was  of  his  own  invention,  and  he.  Dr. 
Bemis,  had  heard  of  its  being  in  use  before.  These 
are  the  only  two  conversations  he  had  with  Mr.  Pier- 
pont, and  he  admits  there  was  nothing  at  the  time  to 
fix  in  his  mind  the  language  used  by  either  party.  He 
states,  however,  that  he  expressed  to  the  respondent 
his  wish  that  the  hone  should  be  kept  a  secret,  because 
he  meant  to  take  out  a  patent  for  it,  as  soon  as  his 
health  and  business  permitted.  This  is  the  substance 
of  his  testimony,  as  I  now  am  able  to  recall  it.  Every 
thing  here  depends  upon  the  accuracy  of  Dr.  Bemis ; 
a  slight  error  as  to  the  original  conversations,  might 
change  the  character  of  the  transaction.  Is  his  state- 
ment entitled  to  imphcit  confidence?  Although  he 
affected  to  testify  from  written  memoranda,  is  he  not 
mistaken  several  years  in  his  time  ?  Mr.  Wells,  the 
manufacturer  of  the  cylindrical  razor-strops,  has  testi- 
fied that  the  first  he  ever  made  or  knew  of  being  made, 
was  as  late  as  1824.  Dr.  Bemis  says  the  reason  why 
he  wanted  the  invention  kept  a  secret  was,  that  he 
meant  to  take  out  a  patent  for  it.  Is  that  true  ?  If 
so,  why  did  he  not  take  one  ?  He  had  made  the  in- 
vention, as  he  says,  in  1811,  and  no  one  knew  of  it 
till  1821.  Mr.  Pierpont  had  regarded  it  of  so  httle 
consequence,  that  he  never  happened  to  speak  of  it  or 
to  exhibit  his  strop,  with  this  hone  in  it,  for  aught  that 
appears,  for  nearly  ten  years  more,  and  yet  Dr.  Bemis 


32 


never,  during  this  period,  took  any  measures  to  obtain 
the  patent.  In  1832,  Dr.  Bemis  was  apprized  that 
Mr.  Babbit  was  manufacturing  these  hones,  and  was 
told  by  Mr.  Ashton,  that  Mr.  Pierpont  was  the  in- 
ventor. Why,  if  there  had  been  this  betraying  of  con- 
fidence, did  he  not  then  take  measures  to  secure  his 
invention  by  letters-patent  ?  If  his  discovery  had  been 
fraudulently  betrayed,  he  could  still  have  protected  his 
rights  in  regard  to  it,  as  well  as  before.  But  he  has 
never,  from  that  day  to  this,  done  aught  towards  taking 
out  a  patent  for  his  invention.  He  gives,  as  a  reason 
for  this,  that  he  has  been  waiting  for  Mr.  Pierpont  to 
make  an  explanation ;  and  though  he  has  often  met 
him,  he  has  never  asked  of  him  the  explanation  he 
desired.  So  far  from  it,  he  says  that  after  seeing  the 
hones  at  Ashton's,  he  sent  word  to  Mr.  Pierpont,  by 
Deacon  Brown,  that  if  he,  Mr.  Pierpont,  would  attend 
to  making  out  the  specifications  for  a  patent,  he  would 
share  with  him  the  profits  they  would  make,  which 
he  thought  might  have  been  at  least  several  thousand 
dollars. 

Would  Dr.  Bemis,  if  he  regarded  himself  the  author 
of  a  valuable  invention,  which  had  been  stolen  from 
him  by  treachery  and  fraud,  have  gone  to  the  man 
who  had  betrayed  him,  and  offered  to  divide  the  profits 
of  the  invention  with  him  ?  would  he  have  lain  by  in 
silence  ten  years  more,  and  taken  no  step  to  protect 
his  legal  rights,  to  wait  for  an  explanation  from  one 
who  had  used  him  thus  falsely  ? 

The  truth  is,  in  1831,  the  steel  hone,  if  it  ever  was 


33 


a  secret,  had  ceased  to  be  one.  Mr.  Pierpont,  if  he 
had  ever  considered  it  as  made  known  to  him  in  con- 
j&dence,  must  have  felt  as  much  absolved  from  all  obli- 
gation to  regard  it  so  any  longer,  as  he  would  the  secret 
of  a  friend  that  he  was  engaged  to  be  married,  after 
the  engagement  had  been  performed,  and  he  had  reared 
up  a  family  of  children. 

The  witnesses  all  state  that  any  metal  will  answer 
the  purposes  of  a  hone,  with  the  aid  of  the  paste  that 
is  used  upon  it ;  but  the  advantage  of  steel  is,  that  it 
may  be  made  lighter,  stifTer,  and  more  portable  than 
other  metals.  Steel  had  been  used  by  Mr.  Babbit  for 
pohshing,  grinding,  and  sharpening  gravers  for  twenty- 
five  years.  Mr.  Boyden  of  Foxboro'  had  made  or  used 
steel  hones  for  sharpening  razors  before  1 820,  and  had 
received  his  information  how  to  manufacture  them 
from  another,  who  himself  had  made  and  used  them. 

In  January,  1831,  the  Journal  of  the  Franklin  Insti- 
tute, published  in  this  country,  contained  a  full  de- 
scription of  a  steel  hone,  which  had  been  in  use  for 
years  in  England. 

Thirteen  years  ago,  Mr.  Dixon  thinks,  he  saw  them 
in  use  in  England,  and  he  has  bills  of  his  own  importa- 
tions of  the  article  for  sale,  at  least  ten  years  old,  and 
Mr.  Willard  imported  them  for  sale  in  1831. 

Here,  then,  before  Mr.  Pierpont  ever  heard  that  Mr. 
Babbit  had  seen  his  hone,  steel  hones  were  in  use 
all  around  him,  were  openly  advertised  and  sold  in  the 
hardware  shops  in  Boston,  and  there  was  nothing  that 
could  have  been  protected  in  respect  to  them ;  and  yet 


34 


he  is  charged  with  having  injured  Dr.  Bemis  by  having 
betrayed  a  secret. 

Where  men  are  charged  with  crimes,  we  look  to  see 
what  motive  can  have  impelled  them  to  the  act,  before 
we  are  ready  to  presume  them  guilty.  And  what  mo- 
tive could  have  induced  Mr.  Pierpont  to  deceive  and 
defraud  Dr.  Bemis  ?  He  had  no  hostile  feehngs  to- 
wards him.  He  never  received  a  cent  for  the  disclo- 
sure, and  the  disclosure  itself  was  made  to  a  stranger, 
who  was  not  even  his  neighbor. 

But  the  ground  of  the  Proprietors  seems  to  have 
been  shifted  upon  the  introduction  of  the  respondent's 
testimony,  and  it  has  been  said,  that,  though  steel 
hones  had  thus  been  in  public  use,  they  were  hardened 
steel,  while  those  of  Dr.  Bemis  were  softened  or  an- 
nealed. 

In  the  first  place,  it  does  not  appear  whether  the  first 
lot  imported  by  Mr.  Dixon  were  or  were  not  of  hard- 
ened steel.  They  were  used  with  paste,  in  the  same 
manner  that  Bemis's  was  used.  But  it  is  proved  that 
Mr.  Boyden  made  and  used  steel  hones,  both  hard  and 
soft,  and  with,  as  well  as  without  paste. 

Nor  is  it  true,  that  Dr.  Bemis  has  ever  claimed  the 
invention  of  soft  steel  hones,  in  distinction  from  hard 
ones.  It  is  true,  he  told  Mr.  Pierpont  that  he  might 
make  a  hone  out  of  a  file  by  annealing  it,  so  that  he 
could  work  it.  But  he  says,  "  I  considered  the  inven- 
tion the  use  of  steel,  with  such  paste  as  you  may 
choose."  "  I  had  not  known  a  steel  base  used  till 
then ;  I  had  used  copper  when  a  boy."     "  It  is  the 


^  an 

paste  that  does  the  sharpening.  It  was  my  object  to 
find  a  base.^^  "  It  is  the  paste  that  operates,  for  the 
instrument  does  not  touch  the  base.  I  regard  steel  the 
best." 

Through  all  his  testimony  he  laid  claim  to  the  in- 
vention of  a  steel  base,  in  its  broadest  sense,  without 
any  distinction  as  to  its  being  soft  or  hard.  And  it  has 
been  proved  beyond  contradiction,  that  in  1831,  there 
could  have  been  no  pretence  to  regard  this  as  any- 
body's secret. 

Which  on  the  whole  is  the  most  credible,  that  Mr. 
Pierpont  without  motive  should  have  falsely  and  fraud- 
ulently cheated  Dr.  Bemis  out  of  a  valuable  secret,  by 
going  to  a  stranger  and  disclosing  it  to  him,  or  that 
Dr.  Bemis,  under  influences  which  we  need  not  trace, 
has  misrepresented,  or  has  been  mistaken  ?  What  is 
character  worth,  and  why  do  we  cherish  it  as  beyond 
price,  unless  it  shall  weigh  in  a  case  like  this  ? 

Are  not  the  life  and  character  of  such  a  man  as  the 
respondent,  to  weigh  more  in  the  scale  of  credit,  than 
the  recollections  of  one  who,  to  aid  his  enemies,  goes 
back  twenty  years,  to  hunt  up  some  word  or  sentence, 
which  may,  by  possibility,  be  forced  into  an  impeach- 
ment of  his  honesty  and  his  honor  ? 

As  to  the  second  part  of  this  charge,  that  Mr.  Pier- 
pont wilfully  permitted  himself  to  be  regarded  as  the 
inventor,  it  is  not  only  not  proved,  but  it  is  utterly  dis- 
proved. The  hone  never  was  advertised  as  Mr.  Pier- 
pont's  invention.  He  never  knew  that  Mr.  Ashton,  or 
any  body  else,  ascribed  it  to  him.     So  far  from  it,  even 


3G 


Dr.  Bemis  admits  that  Mr.  Babbit  stated  to  him,  that 
Mr.  Pierpont  said  he  did  not  invent  it,  but  derived  his 
first  knowledge  of  it  from  Dr  Bemis,  through  Deacon 
Brown. 

The  whole  matter  would  be  too  frivolous  thus  to  be 
noticed,  if  upon  it  the  Proprietors  had  not  sought  to 
rest  their  charge  of  "  a  want  of  integrity,"  as  well  as 
of  good  faith,  and  if  the  respondent  had  not  felt  that 
it  was  altogether  unfounded. 

The  next  specification  to  which  the  attention  of  the 
Council  is  directed,  is  that  relative  to  the  pretended 
pledging  of  the  copy-right  of  a  book,  in  which  Mr. 
Fowle  was  interested. 

The  charge  is  in  these  words :  "  Pledging  to  another 
the  copy-right  of  a  book  which  he  had  engaged  with 
Mr.  W.  B.  Fowle  not  to  dispose  of,  without  first  ofifer- 
ing  it  to  him,  not  having  first  offered  the  same  to  said 
Fowle." 

It  appeared  in  evidence,  that  the  "  American  Class 
Book  "  was  compiled  by  Mr.  Pierpont,  Mr.  Fowle  of- 
fering him  for  the  work,  to  be  published  in  the  name 
of  Mr.  Pierpont  as  author,  the  sum  of  five  hundred 
dollars.  It  was  published  in  1823,  and  Mr.  Fowle 
took  out  the  copy-right  in  his  own  name,  as  "  propri- 
etor," which,  as  the  law  then  stood,  would  expire  in 
fourteen  years,  viz.  in  1837. 

In  1827,  Mr.  Pierpont  compiled  a  new  school  book, 
called  the  "  National  Reader,"  and  although  four  years 
of  the  copy-right  of  the  Class  Book  had  expired, 
feeling  a  partiality  for  his  first  work,  he  proposed  to 


37 


Mr.  Fowle  to  exchange,  by  giving  him  one  half  of  the 
copy-right  of  the  last,  for  one  half  of  that  of  the  first, 
to  which  he  assented,  and  a  contract  was  accordingly 
made.  By  this  contract,  neither  party  was  to  dispose 
of  his  half  of  either  copy-right,  without  having  first 
oflfered  it  to  the  other,  at  the  price  at  which  he  could 
sell  it  for.  They  did  not  themselves  publish  either  of 
these  works,  but  sold  the  right  to  publish,  for  a  certain 
number  of  years,  to  publishers  at  certain  rates  of  com- 
pensation. In  1830,  they  made  a  joint  contract  with 
Richardson,  Lord,  &  Holbrook,  for  publishing  the 
Class  Book  up  to  1837,  when  the  term  of  the  copy- 
right expired,  and  in  the  same  year  made  a  similar 
contract,  with  the  same  firm,  for  publishing  the  Read- 
er up  to  1841,  when  it  will  be  remembered  the  copy- 
right for  that  work  also  expired.  By  the  terms  of 
these  contracts,  each  of  the  parties  was  to  be  paid  his 
own  equal  share  of  the  sum  to  be  annually  received  for 
the  right  of  publishing  these  books,  by  separate  notes 
for  the  amount.  The  only  pledging  of  either  of  these 
rights,  which  has  been  proved,  was  to  Messrs.  Fair- 
banks, Loring,  &  Co.  in  regard  to  which  the  following 
facts  appeared.  This  firm  had  been  induced  to  loan 
to  a  brother  of  the  respondent,  and  a  person  by  the 
name  of  Tole,  upon  their  notes,  endorsed  or  signed  by 
the  respondent,  something  over  three  thousand  dollars, 
and  they  had  also  loaned  to  the  same  brother  and  Tole, 
upon  a  note  signed  by  them  and  another  brother,  an- 
other sum  of  one  thousand  dollars,  but  for  this,  the  re- 
spondent was  in  no  wise  holden.  The  enterprise  upon 
6 


38 


which  the  brother  had  entered,  and  for  which  this  mon- 
ey was  wanted,  was  the  manufacture  of  screws.  In 
1833,  the  respondent,  to  secure  the  payment  of  the 
notes  for  which  he  was  holden,  voluntarily  made  over 
to  Fairbanks,  Loring,  k.  Company,  by  contract,  a 
right  to  receive  his  share  of  the  proceeds  of  the  con- 
tracts above  mentioned,  with  Richardson,  Lord,  &c., 
and,  the  year  following,  after  it  had  been  ascertained 
that  the  enterprise  had  failed,  and  the  parties  to  the 
other  note  were  unable  to  pay  it,  the  respondent,  be- 
lieving that  Fairbanks,  Loring,  &  Co.  had  made  the 
loan  in  consequence  of  the  confidence  they  felt  in  the 
makers  of  the  note  because  he  had  originally  intro- 
duced them,  came  forward  of  his  own  accord,  and 
made  himself  hable  for  its  payment,  by  signing  the 
note,  and  pledged  the  copy-right  of  another  book,  to 
secure  its  payment. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  respondent  is  charg- 
ed with  acting  dishonorably  towards  Mr.  Fowle,  for 
having  thus  endeavored  to  sustain  his  honor,  in  his 
dealings  with  Fairbanks,  Loring,  &  Co.  But  had  it 
been  an  actual  pledge  of  the  copy-right  itself,  he  had 
a  perfect  right  to  do  so,  without  thereby  violating  the 
contract  he  had  made  with  Fowle.  This  position  has 
been  fully  settled  by  our  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case 
of  Lovering  vs.  Fogg,  (18  Pick.  542,)  to  which  I  will 
refer  the  Council.  In  fact,  however,  he  never  under- 
took to  pledge  the  copy-right,  and  as  to  the  contract 
with  R.  L.  &  H.,  he  neither  could,  nor  did  he  attempt  to, 
make  over  any  more  than  his  half  of  it.     He  merely 


39 


gave  F.  L.  &  Co.  an  authority  to  receive  his  share  of 
the  proceeds  of  that  contract,  as  they  fell  due,  an  au- 
thority, by  the  way,  which  they  never  exercised,  for 
they  suffered  Mr.  Pierpont  to  manage  the  whole  busi- 
ness, and  received  their  pay  through  his  hands.  So 
far,  therefore,  as  any  pledge  of  a  copy-right  is  con- 
cerned, the  charge  falls  to  the  ground. 

But  as  the  ruhng  of  the  Council  as  to  the  introduction 
of  evidence,  has  opened  the  defendant's  life  to  examina- 
tion, whether  the  charges  have  been  specified  or  not,  Mr. 
Fowle  has  been  permitted  to  spread  whatever  causes  of 
complaint  he  has  against  Mr.  Pierpont,  and  he  has  avail- 
ed himself  of  it,  by  presenting  himself  twice  before  them, 
the  last  time,  with  a  view  of  explaining  his  former  tes- 
timony, after  it  had  become  necessary,  by  the  testimo- 
ny offered  on  the  other  side,  though  with  what  success 
he  has  done  this,  I  shall  leave  to  the  Council  to  judge. 

Mr.  Fowle  at  first  complained  that  Mr.  Pierpont,  in 
1836,  disposed  of  his  half  of  the  right  to  pubhsh  the 
Class  Book,  for  a  term  of  years,  to  a  publisher,  without 
having  consulted  with  Mr.  Fowle,  whereby  he  was  left 
at  the  mercy  of  the  publisher,  as  to  the  price  which  he 
himself  should  demand  for  his  own  half.  Had  it  been 
the  case  that  Mr.  Pierpont  disposed  of  his  half  of  the 
right  to  publish,  before  Mr.  Fowle  had  done  so,  it  is 
not  easy  to  see  why  the  publisher  would  not  be  as 
much  at  the  mercy  of  Mr.  Fowle,  as  he  was  at  that  of 
the  publisher.  Neither  could  publish  witliout  the  con- 
sent of  the  other,  and  the  man  who  had  paid  a  largd 
sum  for  half  the  right,  would  be  but  indiflferently  situ- 
ated to  coerce  his  co-proprietor  as  to  terms. 


40 


Be  that,  however,  as  it  may,  it  is  denied  that  any 
such  contract  was  made  by  Mr.  Pierpont,  or  that  Mr. 
Fowle  was  ever  injured  a  cent  by  any  contract  ever 
made  by  the  respondent. 

The  right  to  pubhsh,  acquired  by  Richardson,  Lord, 
&  Holbrook,  had  become  the  property  of  Mr.  Bow- 
en,  in  December,  1835,  through  Carter  &  Hendee, 
to  whom  it  passed  from  R.  L.  &  H.  In  January, 
1836,  while  Mr.  Pierpont  was  in  Europe,  Mr.  Fowle 
made  a  contract  in  regard  to  his  half  of  the  copy-right 
with  Mr.  Bowen,  covering  the  Class  Book,  from  Dec. 
8,  1835,  to  June  22,  1837,  and  the  Reader,  from  the 
same  date  in  December,  to  1841,  the  respective  limits 
of  the  copy-right  to  these  books. 

In  October  1836,  Mr.  Pierpont  made  a  similar  con- 
tract with  Mr.  Bowen,  in  regard  to  his  half  of  these 
works,  covering  the  time  from  December  8,  1835,  till 
the  expiration  of  five  years. 

In  his  attempted  explanation  of  his  first  statement, 
that  the  sale  to  Bowen  was  first  made  by  Mr.  P.,  Mr. 
Fowle  states  that  this  contract  was  a  mere  compound- 
ing of  tlie  former  contract  made  with  R.  L.  &  H.,  by 
receiving  gross  sums  instead  of  annual  payments.  If 
so,  then  he  cannot  complain  that  Mr.  Pierpont,  after- 
wards, compounded  in  the  same  manner.  But  he  does 
complain  that  Mr.  Pierpont,  as  to  the  Class  Book,  by 
extending  his  contract  five  years,  covered  a  time  of 
nearly  three  years  longer,  than  his  own  contract  had 
done,  and  by  thus  anticipating  him,  and  by  setting  up 
a  claim  to  the  reversion  of  the  copy-right,  after  the 


41 


expiration  of  the  first  term  of  fourteen  years,  prevent- 
ed his  making  as  good  a  contract  with  Mr.  Bowen,  for 
the  term  after  1837,  as  he  otherwise  could  have  done. 

Now  as  to  making  a  contract  with  Mr.  Bowen,  it 
has  been  proved  by  Mr.  Wilhams,  himself  a  party  to  it, 
that  so  far  from  its  being  less  advantageous  than  it  other- 
wise would  have  been,  it  was  actually  upon  as  favora- 
ble terms  as  that  with  Mr.  Pierpont,  more  favorable,  if 
any  thing,  than  that  of  January  1 836,  and  in  no  way 
affected,  as  to  price,  by  the  claim  made  by  the  respon- 
dent to  own  the  whole  reversionary  interest  in  the  copy- 
right. 

But  perhaps,  with  the  feelings  of  Mr.  Fowle,  a  fairer 
statement  ought  not  to  have  been  expected.  He  has 
shown  himself  willing  to  swell  the  tide  against  the  re- 
spondent, by  obtruding  his  own  private  disputes  upon 
your  attention,  and  crowns  his  effort  here,  by  calling 
for,  and  reading  his  own  private  letter  to  Mr.  Pierpont, 
in  which  he  denounces  him  as  a  pirate,  as  well  as  by 
other  kindred  epithets,  because  he  has  ventured  to 
claim  the  rights  which  he  believes  the  law  secures  to 
him,  and  for  which  he  does  not  believe  Mr.  Fowle  has 
ever  paid  a  cent. 

What  right  of  Mr.  Fowle,  I  would  ask,  did  Mr.  Pier- 
pont violate,  by  making  a  contract  embracing  a  period 
after  the  expiration  of  the  copy-right  ?  At  most,  he 
only  disposed  of  but  half,  when,  in  fact,  he  might  have 
lawfully  disposed  of  the  whole  right  to  publish  these 
books.  This  claim  of  Mr.  Pierpont  to  be  the  owner 
of  the  whole  copy-right,  after  the  expiration  of  the  first 


term,  was  known  to  Mr.  Fowle  before  1836,  and  has 
been  the  subject  of  discussion  between  them  ever 
since,  and  it  was  that  a  stranger  might  not  be  misled, 
that  Mr.  P.  directed  his  legal  counsel  to  apprize  Mr. 
Bowen  of  the  claim  that  he  made. 

Such  was  Mr.  Pierpont's  claim  then,  and  such  it  is 
now,  under  the  advice  of  able  and  judicious  counsel. 
He  has  again  and  again  offered  to  refer  the  question 
between  him  and  Mr.  Fowle,  to  the  decision  of  Judge 
Story,  or  referees  competent  to  determine  it.  But 
Mr.  Fowle  has  objected  to  submitting  it  as  a  question 
of  law,  and  talks  of  Equity,  while  abusing  Mr.  Pier- 
pont  in  no  measured  terms.  It  may  be  well  to  inquire 
into  this  matter  of  equity,  although  it  is  difficult  to  see 
why  Mr.  Fowle  has  brought  the  question  before  this 
Council,  unless  it  is  to  forestall  an  opinion  while  he  can 
be  a  witness  in  his  own  favor.  What  is  the  equity  ? 
Mr.  Pierpont  makes  a  book,  Mr.  Fowle  pays  him  for 
this,  and  the  use  of  his  name  and  literary  reputation, 
five  hundred  dollars.  Without  a  dollar's  outlay,  of  which 
we  have  heard,  he  receives  more  dollars  every  year  for 
the  right  of  publishing  this  book,  than  he  paid  for  the 
work  itself.  The  "  Reader  "  proves  a  more  profitable 
work,  in  fact,  than  the  Class  Book.  He  enjoys  these, 
the  fruits  of  another's  labor  and  talents  and  reputation, 
for  fourteen  years,  and  by  his  own  showing,  thereby 
realizes  from  seven  to  ten  thousand  dollars,  and  now 
comes  forward  to  complain  of  Mr.  Pierpont,  for  hav- 
ing, as  the  author,  sought  to  protect  what  he  regards 
as  his  legal  rights  to  his  own  property,  for  the  benefit 


43 


of  his  wife  and  children.  Nay  more,  he  has  sold  one 
half  the  copy-right  since  it  became,  as  Mr.  Pierpont 
believes,  his  exclusive  property,  for  the  term  of  five 
years,  for  which  he  has  realized  more  tlian  fifteen  hun- 
dred dollars,  and  now  charges  the  man  to  whom  he  is 
indebted  for  all  this,  with  a  want  of  integrity  in  his 
dealings  ! 

I  have  read  of  a  hard  master  "  reaping  where  he 
had  not  sowed,  and  gathering  where  he  had  not 
strowed,"  but  I  never  heard  a  servant  charged  before 
with  a  want  of  integrity  for  not  continuing  to  sow  and 
scatter  for  such  a  master. 

The  legal  right  is  believed  to  be  with  Mr.  Pierpont. 
It  is  a  question  of  law.  Let  it  go  to  the  Courts  to  be 
settled,  and  let  them  declare  Mr.  Pierpont  wrong  in 
his  law,  before  this  Council  shall  condemn  him  for  a 
want  of  integrity  in  his  deahngs,  for  entertaining  an 
honest  opinion  as  to  his  legal  rights,  based  upon  the 
language  of  the  statute  and  the  counsel  of  his  legal 
adviser. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  as  a  clergyman,  it  is  improp- 
er for  the  respondent  to  rely  upon  his  legal  rights,  or 
attempt  to  enforce  them.  Let  this  be  tried  by  a  home- 
ly illustration.  A  minister  of  the  gospel  leases  one 
half  his  house  to  a  tenant  for  fourteen  years.  At  the 
end  of  the  period,  however,  the  tenant  claims  the  prem- 
ises as  his  own,  and  refuses  to  surrender  possession. 
What  shall  the  owner  do  ?  —  may  he  safely  tell  the  in- 
truder that  the  house  is  his  own,  and  he  means  to  re- 
sort to  the  law  to  recover  its  possession  ?    Or  is  a  cler- 


44 


gyman  such  an  outlaw,  that  every  harpy  may  prey 
upon  him  with  impunity,  because  he  can  only  complain 
at  the  peril  of  losing  his  parish  and  his  reputation,  by 
a  decree  of  a  council  of  churches  ? 

I  now  pass  to  another  part  of  this  charge  of  a  want 
of  " scrupulous  integrity  "  "in  his  secular  dealings,  " 
which  relates  to  the  alleged  contract  with  Mr.  Clapp. 
The  specification  is,  "  wholly  neglecting  and  omitting, 
without  justifiable  cause,  to  furnish  W.  W.  Clapp  with 
letters  "  &c.  "  he  having  entered  into  a  written  agree- 
ment so  to  do,  and  having  received  "  &c.  "  the  consid- 
eration for  writing  said  letters."  Plainly  implying,  it 
will  be  perceived,  that  Mr.  Pierpont  had  received 
money  of  Mr.  Clapp,  which  he  never  repaid. 

How  have  the  facts  turned  out  upon  investigation 
in  relation  to  this  charge  ? 

That.  Mr.  Pierpont  received  the  sum  of  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  dollars  of  Mr.  Clapp,  is  not  denied  ;  that 
both  parties  expected  that  for  this  Mr.  Pierpont  would 
write  letters  from  Europe,  for  Mr.  Clapp's  paper,  is  not 
controverted.  But  that  both  parties  regarded  it  as  un- 
certain whether  this  could  be  done,  and  if  not  done, 
that  it  was  understood  the  money  should  be  returned, 
the  written  contract  between  them  itself  shows.  Mr. 
Pierpont  had  been  extremely  sick,  he  was  about  to 
take  a  voyage  for  the  restoration  of  his  health,  he 
knew  nothing  of  the  difficulty  of  writing  letters  for 
the  press,  while  making  a  hasty  tour  in  a  foreign  coun- 
try. And  all  this  was  known  to  Mr.  Clapp,  who  was 
willing  to  advance  this  sum  of  money  on  these  contin- 


45 


gences,  as  expressed  in  the  contract  —  viz.  "If  less 
than  that  (fifty  letters)  shall  be- written  during  my  ab- 
sence, or  if  I  shall  return  before  two  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars  are  exhausted,  then  I  am  to  repay  to  him  (Clapp) 
the  amount  of  such  deficiency,  after  my  return.'^''  This 
money  was  advanced  to  Mr.  Pierpont  by  two  drafts 
which  he  got  discounted,  each  for  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  dollars,  dated  October  3,  one  on  three,  and 
the  other  on  six  months'  time. 

Now  in  truth,  before  his  return,  before  the  first  of 
these  drafts  fell  due,  Mr.  Pierpont,  finding  he  could  not 
write  as  he  had  undertaken  to  do,  remitted  the  amount 
of  both  drafts  to  Mr.  Clapp,  in  a  letter  of  the  25th 
December,  from  Rome,  which  was  received  by  Mr. 
Clapp  early  in  March,  and  the  money  was  at  once 
made  use  of  by  him. 

One  would  have  supposed  tliat  by  such  a  repayment, 
and  by  the  acceptance  of  the  money,  the  contract 
would  be  cancelled.  Biit  it  is  said  Mr.  P.  neglected 
to  write  ivithout  justifiable  cause  ! 

So  far  as  probabilities  are  to  be  considered,  who 
would  be  ready  to  believe  that  a  poor  clergyman, 
pressed  as  Mr.  P.  was  for  money,  as  stated  by  Mr. 
Clapp  himself,  if  he  had  physical  power  to  pay  a  debt 
by  his  pen,  would,  instead  of  that,  repay  it  in  money, 
when  by  so  doing,  he  was  failing  to  keep  his  promise 
witli  his  then  friend  ?  So  far  from  this  being  the  ca.se, 
it  has  not  only  been  proved  that  Mr.  Pierpont  could 
not  write  the  letters,  but  that  the  Avhole  matter  was  ful- 
7 


46 


ly  explained  to  Mr.  Clapp,  in  the  letter  of  December 
25,  enclosing  the  remittance. 

He  knew  that  he  was  sick  before  he  left  home.  Mr. 
Tappan,  who  furnished  him  the  means  of  remitting  the 
amount  due  to  Mr.  Clapp,  was  with  him  in  Rome,  and 
has  stated  his  condition  as  to  health,  and  his  inability  to 
write  while  there.  Mr.  Clapp  admits  that  Mr.  Pier- 
pont  stated  the  reasons  why  he  did  not  write,  and  from 
the  extracts  from  that  letter  published  in  his  paper, 
some  of  these  reasons  appear.  It  appears  there,  that 
he  had  been  sick  in  Marseilles  eleven  days,  but  Mr. 
Clapp  is  not  certain  that  he  gave  as  a  reason  for  not 
writing,  his  then  ill  health.  Why  does  not  Mr.  Clapp 
produce  that  letter  ?  He  says  it  is  mislaid,  and  has 
been  lost  within  four  or  five  months,  although  upon  it 
rested  the  proof  as  to  this  very  charge,  and  by  it,  if  at 
all,  Mr.  Clapp  was  to  repel  the  charge  of  falsehood 
which  he  supposes  Mr.  Pierpont  made  against  him  in 
one  of  the  printed  letters  to  the  committee  of  the  Pro- 
prietors. 

That  letter  may  be  lost,  but  how,  or  why,  is  a  myste- 
ry which  the  Council  is  left  to  solve. 

Mr.  Clapp  has  said  in  his  testimony,  that  Mr.  Pier- 
pont in  his  letter  said  something  about  a  "  cordon  sani- 
taire,^^  and  it  has  been  tried  to  show  that  while  Mr. 
Pierpont  was  in  Europe,  no  cordon  sanitaire  was  main- 
tained. 

Let  us  see  that  letter,  instead  of  this  kind  of  recol- 
lection of  its  contents,  and  you  may  rest  assured  that 
its  statements  would  all  prove  true. 


47 


It  was  stated,  too,  by  Mr.  Clapp,  that  Mr.  Pierpont, 
in  his  letter,  stated  that  on  his  return  he  would  adjust 
the  balance  of  interest,  which  he  had  never  done. 

Now  I  have  computed  that  balance,  and  I  find  it  to 
be  seventy-five  cents ;  and  unless  Mr.  Clapp  is  willing 
to  allow  any  thing  for  the  long  letter  of  December  25th, 
a  considerable  part  of  which  he  published,  or  for  another 
communication  from  the  same  pen,  published  since 
that  time,  there  is  that  amount  due,  for  which  Mr. 
Clapp  has  his  legal  remedy,  but  for  which  this  Council 
cannot  render  judgment. 

It  has,  however,  been  attempted  to  be  shown,  that 
Mr.  Pierpont  actually  wrote  home  letters  to  his  wife 
and  children,  and  therefore  he  might  and  ought  to  have 
written  for  Mr.  Clapp's  paper.  These  letters  were 
written  from  Asia  Minor  and  other  places,  long  after 
the  money  had  been  returned  to  Mr.  Clapp  and  the 
contract  had  been  ended.  But  even  if  they  had  not 
been,  is  this  Council  to  be  asked  to  disgrace  a  minis- 
ter for  having,  while  abroad,  found  time  and  opportu- 
nity to  write  home  to  his  wife,  instead  of  employing 
this  time  in  writing  letters  for  a  newspaper  ?  One 
thing  is  true :  Mr.  Pierpont  never  sold  his  talents  to 
another ;  and  one  single  piece  of  poetry,  written  in 
February,  and  published  in  the  Knickerbocker,  is  the 
only  production  of  his  pen  that  ever  found  its  way  into 
print,  with  the  exception  of  the  long  and  interesting 
letter  to  Mr.  Clapp,  which  he  himself  published. 

Is  this  an  honest  charge  ?  Has  Mr.  Clapp  acted 
like  a  man,  in  taking  back  his  money  before  it  was 


48 


due,  and  then  complaining  in  Mr.  Pierponl's  absence, 
and  while  he  knew  the  reasons  why  he  could  not  write, 
that  "  he  had  deceived  him  ?  "  Was  it  manly,  when 
the  wife  of  Mr.  Pierpont,  —  who  had  again  and  again 
been  to  him  to  endeavor  to  satisfy  him  that  some  good 
reason  must  exist  why  no  letter  had  been  received,  — 
went  to  him  after  he  had  received  the  letter  of  the 
25th  of  December,  to  give  her  to  understand  that  her 
husband  was  not  going  to  write  the  letters  as  he  had 
agreed,  without  the  slightest  intimation  that  the  money 
had  been  repaid,  or  any  good  reason  given  for  failing 
to  furnish  these  letters  ? 

I  may  not,  if  I  would,  appeal  to  the  wives  who  are 
before  me,  for  their  judgment  of  such  conduct ;  but  I 
appeal  to  this  Council,  what  must  have  been  the  feel- 
ings of  a  wife,  to  whom  a  husband's  honor  is  dearer 
than  her  life,  who  should  thus  be  left,  till  the  very  hour 
of  his  return,  to  learn  from  his  own  declaration,  for  the 
first  time,  that  he  had  not  broken  his  word  or  been  base 
to  his  friend  ?  A  man  who  can  do  as  Mr.  Clapp  has 
done,  in  regard  to  the  whole  of  this  transaction,  is 
welcome  to  all  the  honor  and  satisfaction  he  can  de- 
rive in  coming  forward,  by  his  own  oath,  to  endeavor 
to  crush  the  man  to  whom  he  once  pretended  to  be  a 
friend. 

These  are  the  charges  affecting  the  moral  integrity 
of  my  cUent.  They  have  never  been  heard  of  in  the 
history  of  this  controversy,  till  his  opposers  have  gone 
out  into  the  highways  and  byways  to  bring  in  those 
who  have  had  hardihood  enough  to  act  as  his  accusers. 


49 


And  do  not  such  charges  and  such  proofs  give  a  char- 
acter to  the  whole  of  these  proceedings  against  the 
respondent  ? 

Akin  to  the  charge  of  crime,  and  scarcely  lower  in 
the  scale  of  morals,  is  that  of  Ingratitude.  It  was  not 
formally  specified  in  any  of  these  charges ;  but  the 
Proprietors  have  introduced  proof,  that  soon  after  the 
return  of  Mr.  Pierpont  from  Europe,  many  of  his  then 
friends,  including  some  that  are  now  opposed  to  him, 
contributed  liberally  to  reheve  him  from  pecuniary 
embarrassment. 

He  had  been  the  minister  of  the  parish  for  seventeen 
years,  during  which  time  the  society  had  never  been 
taxed  a  dollar  extra  for  the  supply  of  the  pulpit.  By 
advice  and  consent  of  the  society,  he  had  been  absent 
most  of  the  year,  had  incurred  heavy  expenses,  had 
returned  in  health  to  his  people,  and  they  nobly  and 
generously  stepped  forward  to  aid  him  by  pecuniary 
reHef —  and  no  one  more  so  than  one  venerable  gen- 
tleman whom  he  now  saw  among  his  opposers.  But 
come  what  may,  the  generosity  and  kindness  that  he 
had  then  experienced,  can  never  be  forgotten.  It  has 
sunk  deep  into  his  heart,  and  the  recollection  of  it  will 
be  grateful,  even  if  the  worst  purposes  of  his  enemies 
should  now  be  accomplished.  He  knew  that  this 
could  never  have  been  given  as  hush  money,  or  with  a 
view  to  trammel  him  in  the  free  exercise  of  his  opin- 
ions, even  tliough  from  the  manner  in  which  it  has 
been  introduced  here,  one  might  almost  infer  it  was 
thought  he  had  violated  some  implied  pledge  by  tlie 


60 


course  he  had  pursued.  (Here  the  Proprietors'  coun- 
sel expressly  disclaimed  any  such  intention  —  it  was 
offered,  they  said,  to  show  the  harmony  that  prevailed 
at  that  time  in  the  society.)  I  thank  the  gentlemen 
for  their  explanation,  though  I  could  not  have  done 
them  the  injustice  to  suppose  they  could  have  offered 
him  this  money  from  other  motives  than  those  of 
friendship  and  respect. 

We  have  now  reached  the  second  general  division 
of  the  charges,  which  relate  to  the  manner  in  which 
Mr.  Pierpont  has  performed  his  ministerial  duties.  He 
is  said  to  have  neglected  these,  by  reason  of  his  atten- 
tion having  been  diverted  to  "  secular  pursuits  and 
popular  controversies."  Among  these  a  too  great  de- 
votion of  time  to  mechanical  contrivances  is  first 
named. 

What  are  the  proper  limits  of  a  clergyman's  sphere 
of  duty  ?  May  he  not  employ  his  leisure  hours  in  re- 
laxation, suited  to  his  taste  and  health  ?  If  his  taste 
leads  him  to  indulge  in  historical  researches,  may  he 
not  gratify  it,  even  by  giving  the  result  of  his  labors  to 
the  public  ?  Or  if  he  feels  an  interest  in  literary  or 
theological  discussions,  may  he  not  contribute  of  his 
pen  to  the  periodicals  of  the  day  ?  If  he  has  a  taste  or 
genius  for  the  fine  arts,  may  he  not  gratify  these  ? 
May  he  not  play  a  piano,  or  listen  to  its  music,  if  his 
wife  or  daughter  plays  it  ?  If  his  taste  and  genius  are 
directed  towards  the  mechanic  arts,  may  he  not  in- 
dulge even  these,  if,  at  the  same  time,  he  is  securing 
his  health  by  bodily  exercise  ?    May  he  not  saw  the 


61 


wood  for  his  own  fire,  or  fashion  a  stove  to  burn  it  in  ? 
And  may  he  not  even  go  so  far,  and  yet  be  innocent, 
as  to  devise  a  strop  for  setting  an  edge  upon  the  razor 
with  which  he  trims  his  beard  ? 

You  may  call  this  trifling,  but  how  can  a  charge 
like  this  be  treated  otherwise  ?  When,  I  would  ask, 
did  even  mechanical  labor  cease  to  be  an  honorable,  a 
fitting  employment  for  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel  ? 
How  was  it  of  old  ?  —  Paul  wrought  at  the  craft  of  a 
tent-maker  at  Corinth,  and  our  Saviour  was  himself  a 
carpenter. 

The  next  of  these  "  secular  pursuits"  I  shall  notice, 
is  that  of  "  compihng  school  books." 

This  charge  must  strike  the  mind  of  every  one  with 
some  surprise,  when  it  is  remembered  that  from  the 
earliest  history  of  our  Commonwealth,  ministers  have, 
by  law,  been  charged  with  the  care  and  supervision  of 
our  schools;  and  when  it  is  remembered,  too,  how 
much  of  the  usefulness  of  our  common  schools  depends 
upon  the  class  books  which  are  used  in  them.  It  ap- 
pears that  for  several  years,  Mr.  Pierpont  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  School  Committee  of  this  city,  to  his 
appointment  to  which  oflice  it  does  not  appear  tliat 
any  in  his  society  were  then  opposed.  His  attention 
was  thereby  called  to  the  defective  character  of  the 
school  books  then  in  use,  and  to  remedy  tliis  he  pre- 
pared one  or  more  reading  books  which  have  met  with 
universal  approbation.  And  now,  is  tliis  to  be  charged 
as  an  offence  ?  Is  the  cause  of  education  to  be  here- 
after interdicted  to  our  clergy  ?  Who  shall  superintend 


b% 


the  moral  and  intellectual  culture  of  the  young,  if  they 
may  not?  While  there  is  a  spirit  awakened  in  the 
land  upon  tliis  momentous  subject,  shall  a  man,  by  be- 
coming a  minister,  cease  to  have  a  right  to  feel  and 
act  in  the  cause  ? 

The  schools  throughout  the  country  have  been 
deeply  indebted  to  Mr.  Pierpont,  for  what  he  has  done 
for  them,  in  this  very  behalf,  and  is  he  now  to  be  held 
up  to  censure  for  having  lent  his  aid  to  the  great  cause 
of  education  ? 

Phrenology  stands  next  in  the  category  of  oifences. 
And  what  is  involved  in  the  charge  ?  Although  it  is 
alluded  to  in  the  complaint  as  a  "  supposed  science," 
yet,  even  in  that  hght,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  where- 
in lies  the  respondent's  fault.  It  treats  of  the  powers 
and  functions  of  the  human  mind,  and  seeks  by  a  new 
analysis  of  these,  to  furnish  a  more  simple  and  rational 
system  by  which  to  study  and  understand  its  phenom- 
ena and  its  laws. 

Will  it  be  said  that  a  minister  may  not  interest  him- 
self to  study  and  understand  the  discoveries  that  are 
made  in  science  ?  Is  the  science  of  the  mind  —  the 
immortal  principle  in  man,  foreign  from  a  minister's 
duty  ?  Is  not  the  soul  to  be  educated  and  trained  for 
another  life,  and  is  it  unworthy  of  a  minister  to  study 
how  this  can  best  be  done  ? 

Try  phrenology  by  its  effects  upon  those  who  have 
pursued  it  the  furthest,  and  how  will  its  tendency  be 
found  ?  Go  ask  the  stranger,  when  he  visits  the  beau- 
tiful spot  where  the  dead  rest  so  sweetly  amidst  the 


53 


shades  of  Mount  Auburn,  why  he  pauses  to  pay  the 
homage  of  respect  to  that  simple  monument  on  which 
the  eye  rests  among  the  first  that  it  sees  on  entering 
that  spot.  And  he  will  tell  you  that  in  distant  lands,  or 
on  the  furthest  confines  of  our  own  vast  continent,  he 
has  heard  the  name  and  learned  to  respect  the  virtues 
of  that  pioneer  in  this  science  who  sleeps  beneath  that 
marble. 

If  we  take  but  a  single  branch  of  this  science,  its 
connexion  with  the  phenomena  of  that  most  dreadful 
of  all  maladies  —  insanity  —  who,  at  this  day,  will  deny 
to  phrenology  the  dignity  of  a  place  among  kindred 
sciences,  or  in  view  of  its  developements  will  say,  that 
it  is  unbecoming  a  religious  teacher  to  examine  into 
and  present  to  the  minds  of  others,  its  facts  and  its 
laws  ? 

Imprisonment  for  debt  and  abolition  of  slavery  are 
the  only  remaining  items  in  this  general  charge  except 
one  to  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to  call  your  attention 
in  another  part  of  my  remarks. 

I  do  not  now  propose  to  consider  the  conduct  of 
Mr.  Pierpont  upon  these  subjects  as  a  minister,  as  that 
must  form  another  part  of  this  case,  and  therefore  only 
speak  in  this  connexion  of  what  he  has  done,  out  of 
his  pulpit,  as  a  citizen. 

That  as  a  citizen  he  has  endeavored  to  ameliorate 
the  laws  in  regard  to  poor  debtors  is  not  denied,  and  in 
this  he  was  but  a  little  in  advance  of  public  sentiment. 
That,  as  we  all  know,  has  undergone  such  a  change 


54 


that  imprisonment  for  debt,  as  a  system,  is  wellnigh 
abolished. 

As  a  citizen,  he  may  have  spoken  against  slavery, 
but  of  this,  however,  there  has  been  no  proof.  But 
suppose  he  has  spoken  against  both  imprisonment  of 
poor  debtors,  and  slavery,  is  he  for  that  reason  to  be 
condemned  and  cast  out  as  a  minister  ?  Does  a  man 
by  becoming  a  watchman  over  human  beings  cease  to 
be  a  man,  or  to  have  a  right  to  indulge  in  human  sym- 
pathies ? 

Here  I  will  leave  these  charges,  and  will  inquire, 
even  if  Mr.  Pierpont  has  done  all  that  is  here  set  down 
against  him,  where  is  the  proof  of  one  duty  neglected, 
one  trust  violated  ? 

The  attempt,  to  prove  this  has  most  signally  failed. 
They  have  gone  over  his  ministerial  life,  of  more  than 
twenty-one  years,  and  what  have  they  found  ? 

Mr.  Crane  undertook  to  tell  of  a  supposed  neglect 
some  eighteen  years  ago  —  but  he  became  soon  after 
satisfied  with  Mr.  Pierpont's  course,  and  for  years  was 
one  of  his  strongest  friends  and  warmest  admirers. 
He  has  told  us  of  the  complaint  of  his  aged  mother-in- 
law  of  Mr.  Pierpont's  neglect  to  visit  her,  and  it  turned 
out  that  on  one  occasion,  when  Mr.  Crane  was  treas- 
urer of  the  parish,  Mr.  Pierpont  and  his  wife  called 
at  his  door  in  the  evening  to  see  him,  and  not  finding 
him  at  home,  did  not  call  upon  the  mother,  who  resided 
in  his  family. 

On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Everett  frankly  admitted  that 
he  was  perfectly  satisfied  on  this  ground,  and  Mr.  Hay, 


55 


with  a  frankness  and  honorable  candor  which  charac- 
terized his  whole  testimony,  told  you  there  was  no  cause 
of  complaint  against  Mr.  P.  for  a  neglect  of  his  paro- 
chial duties.  In  this  he  was  sustained  by  Mr.  Smith  ; 
and  Mr.  Tileston  alone  had  furnished  any  ground  of 
complaint,  and  that  was  for  a  supposed  neglect  to  visit 
his  aged  mother. 

In  regard  to  this,  it  appeared  that  she  livedwith  her 
daughter,  whose  family  did  not  attend  Mr.  Pierpont's 
preaching,  and  she  herself,  by  reason  of  her  infirmities, 
had  not  attended  meeting  for  many  years,  before  her 
death  in  1835.  He  had  never  been  invited  to  her  house 
that  he  did  not  go,  and  it  was  proved  that  on  several 
occasions  during  the  time  covered  by  the  complaint, 
he  visited  her,  and  that  in  every  instance  of  domestic 
affliction  which  came  to  his  knowledge,  he  sought 
her  out,  though  a  part  of  the  time  in  a  remote  part  of 
the  city,  and  carried  consolation  to  her  in  her  sorrow. 

The  faithfulness  of  Mr.  Pierpont  as  a  parochial  min- 
ister has  been  almost  wholly  proved  by  the  witnesses 
on  the  other  side.  Mr.  Bradlee  knew  of  no  charge 
against  him  on  this  account,  and  Deacon  Bass  unquali- 
fiedly bore  testimony  to  his  faithfulness  as  a  minister, 
and  his  kind  and  courteous  demeanor  in  his  parochial 
intercourse  with  his  people.  Even  to  the  poor,  it  has 
been  proved  by  Deacon  May,  he  has  been  so  uniform- 
ly attentive,  that  not  one  of  them  has  ever  complained 
of  a  single  neglect,  and  as  an  illustration  of  his  attention 
to  this  class  of  the  people  under  his  charge,  you  have 
heard  it  stated  that  in  one  case  he  visited  an  individual 


36 


as  many  as  sixty  times  during  a  protracted  sickness  of 
three  years. 

If  we  trace  tlirough  his  whole  ministry,  what  scene 
of  joy  or  sorrow  do  we  find  in  which  he  failed  to  sym- 
pathize witli  his  people?  what  marriage  or  baptism, 
what  sick  bed  or  dying  couch,  what  funeral  or  mourn- 
ing circle,  did  he  ever  neglect  ?  What  poor  man  did 
he  ever  fail  to  visit,  or  what  prisoner  to  minister  unto  ? 

And  how  many  clergymen,  in  our  whole  land,  are  there, 
who,  through  a  ministration  of  twenty-one  years,  could 
escape  with  so  few  complaints,  or  feel  a  consciousness 
that  they  had  more  faithfully  done  their  duty  ? 

Although  both  the  subjects  and  manner  of  Mr. 
Pierpont's  sermons,  have  been  together  made  the 
ground  of  complaint,  I  propose  to  consider  these  dis- 
tinct from  each  other.  And  in  regard  to  the  subjects 
which  are  charged  as  objectionable,  they  are  stated  to 
be  —  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  ardent  spirits  —  im- 
prisonment for  debt  —  aboUtion  of  slavery,  and  other 
popular  controversies. 

So  far  as  the  first  is  concerned,  it  has  been  testified 
by  the  witnesses  on  both  sides,  that  with  the  exception 
of  one  sermon  preached  many  years  ago,  he  has  never 
preached  a  sermon  on  Temperance  from  his  pulpit. 
He  may  have  alluded  to  it,  but  so  far  from  this  being 
a  cause  of  complaint,  had  a  stranger  heard  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Crane  when  detailing  the  causes  and 
grounds  of  dissatisfaction  in  this  society,  he  could 
hardly  have  conjectured  that  Mr.  Pierpont  had  him- 
self ever  heard  of  the  subject  of  the  sale  of  ardent 


67 


spirits,  much  less  that  he  had  ever  given  offence  by  his 
exertions  in  the  cause. 

It  has  been  proved  that  he  has  preached  one  sermon 
on  imprisonment  for  debt,  some  twenty  years  ago,  and 
the  facts  which  led  to  it,  have  themselves  been  testified 
of.  In  the  cold  season  of  the  year,  he  was  called  to 
officiate  at  the  funeral  of  one  of  his  parishioners,  who 
had  died  in  child-bed.  He  found  assembled  around 
her  coffin,  seven  children,  thinly  and  poorly  clad,  the 
eldest  about  fifteen  years,  and  the  youngest  an  infant, 
and  these  all  daughters.  He  looked  around  upon  the 
cheerless  walls  of  the  chamber  where  they  had  assem- 
bled, and  he  asked  for  the  father  of  that  group,  and  the 
husband  of  that  dead  mother ;  and  was  told  that  he 
was  in  jail  —  in  jail  for  debt,  —  and  that  his  creditor, 
though  appealed  to  to  release  him  long  enough  to  close 
the  eyes  of  his  dying  wife,  refused,  unless  the  debt 
could  first  be  paid. 

In  view  of  this  scene,  he  did  preach  against  a  law 
that  could  tolerate  such  barbarity  in  a  Christian  land ; 
and  though  the  creditor  was  his  own  parishioner,  he 
would  have  been  unworthy  of  the  title  of  a  Christian 
minister,  if  he  could  have  held  his  peace.  If  cruelty 
and  oppression  hke  this  may  not  be  alluded  to  —  if 
laws  so  barbarous  in  their  operation  may  not  be  spokeij 
of  in  the  pulpit,  half  the  mission  of  our  Saviour  may 
be  defeated,  and  the  purposes  of  his  gospel  be  set  at 
nought. 

We  all  remember  what  the  law  then  was,  and  the 
world  (our  own  Commonwealth  among  the  rest)  has 


58 


kept  pace  with  the  doctrines  that  Mr.  Pierpont  then 
dared  to  advocate.  He  has  never  denied  his  agency 
for  the  rehef  of  poor  debtors ;  but  a  more  just  and 
enhghtened  system  of  laws  has  rendered  it  unnecessary 
for  him  ever  again  to  offend  his  enemies  by  such  an 
effort  in  the  cause  of  humanity. 

Much  as  has  been  said  on  the  subject  in  the  course 
of  this  trial,  he  has  never  been  personal  in  his  remarks 
from  the  pulpit.  That  the  application  of  these  remarks 
was  understood  by  his  hearers,  may  have  been  true.. 
But  it  was  because  it  was  known  to  them  that  the 
abuse  complained  of,  existed. 

And  is  a  minister  to  be  interdicted  from  preaching 
against  vice  or  cruelty  or  oppression,  because  his  re- 
marks may  touch  some  member  of  his  society?  What 
is  preaching  good  for,  if  it  can  only  bear  on  vices  that 
we  never  witness,  and  sins  which  we  are  never  tempted 
to  commit  ? 

Upon  the  principle  contended  for  on  the  side  of  the 
Proprietors,  no  minister  can  censure  any  vices  what- 
ever, unless  it  be  those  which  are  too  remote  to  be  wor- 
thy of  notice.  If  he  attacks  a  vice,  of  which  one  or 
two  only  of  his  parishioners  are  guilty,  he  is  condemn- 
ed as  being  personal.  If  he  waits  till  it  becomes  gen- 
eral, and  there  are  many  who  indulge  in  it,  he  may  no 
longer  attack  it,  lest  he  be  charged  with  being  excited, 
and  be  sacrificed  for  indiscretion  in  giving  cause  for 
offence,  and  making  disturbance  in  his  society.  You 
cannot  draw  a  line  without  either  hedging  in  the  pulpit 
by  arbitrary  rules,  or  leaving  it  free  to  the  honest  judg- 
ment of  the  preacher. 


m 

Abolition.  It  appears  that  Mr.  Pierpont  has  preach- 
ed one  sermon,  after  the  "  Alton  affair,"  as  it  has  been 
called,  in  1837,  which  gave  offence.  That  sermon  is 
before  the  public,  printed  as  it  was  delivered,  and  the 
pubhc  have  long  since  had  an  opportunity  to  judge  of 
its  merits  or  demerits.  Whether  our  sympathies  are 
with  the  AboUtionists  or  not,  who  will  say  tliat  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery  is  one  that  must  never  be  referred  to  in 
the  pulpit  ?  Where  else  can  you  find  an  evil,  moral  or 
political,  so  dangerous  in  its  tendencies  as  that  of  slav- 
ery ?  There  is  not  a  candid  slaveholder  at  the  south, 
who  will  not  tell  you  that  the  evils  of  slavery,  in  a  na- 
tional point  of  view,  to  say  nothing  of  its  moral  ten- 
dencies, are  incalculably  great.  And  while  ecclesias- 
tical bodies,  legislatures,  and  every  body  else,  are  at 
hberty  to  discuss  this  topic,  shall  it  be  said  that  no  pul- 
pit in  Boston  must  dare  do  it  ? 

But  lay  aside  the  connexion  which  that  affair  had 
with  the  existence  of  slavery,  and  there  was  enough 
in  it  to  call  forth  the  voice  of  the  pulpit,  if  it  dared  to 
be  free  —  a  man  shot  down  in  the  streets  by  a  mob  for 
daring  to  defend  the  freedom  of  his  own  press,  and  the 
sanctity  of  his  own  premises.  And  yet  it  is  gravely 
charged  against  Mr.  Pierpont,  that  in  alluding  to  these 
outrages  he  was  excited  in  his  manner.  And  doubtless 
it  was  so :  the  man  who  could  tlien  speak  of  tliem 
with  coolness  and  indifference,  scarcely  deserved  the 
name  of  a  man ;  his  sympathies  must  have  been  dead ; 
every  generous  feeUng  widiin  him  must  have  been  as 
torpid  as  a  slave  dealer's  conscience. 


fiD 


There  was  no  danger  of  being  personal,  for  no  one 
in  his  society  was  interested  in  slave  property  or  labor, 
and  the  scene  of  the  outrage  was  far  distant.  He  was 
maintaining  a  great  principle,  and  even  Mr.  Crane, 
though  offended  at  first,  was  satisfied  after  an  inter- 
view, that  his  purposes  were  right,  and  the  ends  he 
aimed  at  were  honest  and  pure. 

One  other  sermon,  of  which  you  have  heard  much 
during  this  trial,  which  Mr.  Pierpont  dehvered  in  Jan- 
uary, 1839,  entitled  "Moral  Rule  of  Political  Action," 
seems  to  have  been  the  cause  of  much  dissension 
among  certain  of  his  hearers.  Unfortunately  for  those 
who  complain,  this  sermon  was  printed  and  published 
precisely  as  it  was  delivered,  and  it  is  now  before  the 
Council  to  judge,  for  themselves,  if  it  contained  any 
legitimate  cause  of  offence.  Mr.  Crane  heard  but  the 
first  half  of  it,  and  has  never  heard  or  read  a  word  of 
it  besides,  and  so  sensitive  was  he,  that,  from  that 
moment,  he  became  the  irreconcilable  enemy  of  Mr. 
Pierpont.  But  who  else  has  complained  of  it  ?  Mr. 
Bradlee,  who  heard  the  latter  half  of  it,  says  he  was 
not  dissatisfied  with  it.  No  man  from  that  day  to  this 
has  seen  cause  to  criticise  or  condemn  its  sentiments 
or  its  language,  though  it  has  been  before  the  public 
eye  for  at  least  two  years.  I  beg  the  Council  to  read 
it  and  to  see  whether  it  was  the  fault  of  the  sermon,  or 
the  jealousy  of  the  hearer,  that  caused  the  sensation 
which  it  seems  to  have  produced  in  one  or  more  minds. 

It  treats  of  the  duties  which  a  citizen,  as  a  moral 
agent,  owes  to  his  country ;  and  are  these,  too,  to  be 


m 


excluded  from  the  Pulpit  in  Hollis  street !  Mr.  Hay 
tells  us  he  does  not  come  to  church  to  get  his  religion, 
but  to  be  made  better.  And  will  not  minds  Uke  his 
gladly  receive  instruction  as  to  their  social  and  civil 
relations  in  life  ?  If  the  doctrine  now  apparently  con- 
tended for  by  the  Proprietors  is  to  prevail,  what  will 
there  be  left  for  the  minister  of  HoUis-Street  Meeting 
House,  upon  which  he  can  preach  ?  If  he  may  not 
touch  upon  prevailing  vices,  nor  allude  to  national 
evils,  nor  speak  to  his  people  of  their  duties  as  citizens, 
he  must  illustrate  that  perfection  as  a  minister,  of  which 
the  anecdote  is  sometimes  told,  when  one  man,  having 
claimed  great  merit  in  his  own  minister  in  not  preach- 
ing politics,  was  answered  by  the  boast  of  another,  that 
his  minister  never  troubled  his  hearers  about  politics  or 
religion  either. 

Will  you  condemn  a  minister  because  he  cannot  suit 
the  taste  of  every  man  in  his  congregation  ? 

I  trust  you  will  not  be  misled  by  the  title  of  this 
sermon.  It  was  not  preached  to  influence  any  election. 
If  it  had  been  published  while  Mr.  Crane  was  a  candi- 
date for  the  legislature,  his  suspicions,  though  unfoun- 
ded, might  have  been  pardoned.  But  it  was  a  mere 
didactic  essay  upon  the  connexion  between  moral  and 
political  duties,  and  was  delivered  in  the  Winter  after 
the  election  of  Mr.  Crane  had  been  made  sure.  And  the 
whole  difficulty  seems  to  have  grown  out  of  his  ex- 
treme sensitiveness  lest  Mr.  Pierpont  had  said,  or  was 
going  to  say  something  which  would  trench  upon  his 
own  independence  as  a  legislator.  He  tells  us  he  had  sat 
9 


62 


week  after  week,  watching  Mr.  Pierpont  in  his  pulpit, 
and  fearing  he  would  say  something  that  would  offend 
his  enemies  —  and  this  seems  to  have  been  the  first 
time  he  had  detected  him  in  fault. 

He  ascribes  his  offence  at  this  sermon,  to  the  sup- 
posed violation  which  Mr.  Pierpont  thereby  made,  of 
what  Mr.  Crane  is  pleased  to  call  a  pledge,  when,  in 
his  printed  letters,  Mr.  Pierpont  says :  "if  therefore, 
I  have  entered  too  earnestly,  or  too  exclusively  into  a 
few  topics,"  &c.,  "  I  shall  faithfully  endeavor  to  recall 
all  undue  attention  from  the  former  topics,"  &c. 
Clearly,  it  must  have  been  this  watchful  jealousy,  and 
not  the  subject  nor  the  matter  of  the  sermon,  which 
caused  this  excitement  in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Crane  —  an 
excitement  that  he  would  not  suffer  to  be  allayed  by 
any  interview  with  Mr.  Pierpont,  but  seems  to  have 
fanned  and  kept  ahve  unmitigated,  to  this  hour. 

If  the  opponents  of  Mr.  Pierpont  would  accord  to 
him  a  tithe  of  the  same  independence  of  opinion 
towards  his  people  as  a  preacher,  which  they  as  mem- 
bers of  his  society  claim  to  exercise  towards  the  pulpit, 
there  never  would  have  been  complaint  against  him, 
either  on  the  ground  of  the  subjects,  or  the  matter  of 
his  sermons. 

But  to  return  to  the  evidence  on  this  point.  It  thus 
seems  that  in  the  course  of  twenty  years,  the  respon- 
dent has  preached  three  sermons,  the  subjects  of  which 
were  objectionable  to  portions  of  his  hearers.  No 
one,  however,  except  Mr.  Crane,  ever  left  the  society 
on  account  of  them,  and  it  is  questionable  even  in  his 


63 


case  how  far  that  was  the  moving  cause  of  his  irrecon- 
cilable disaffection. 

With  a  parish  like  that  of  HoUis  Street,  made  up  of 
independent  minds,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  are  in  the 
habit  of  thinking  and  speaking  for  themselves,  is  it  not 
remarkable  that  so  few  grounds  of  complaint  on  this 
subject  should  be  found  to  exist  ?  Does  it  not  speak 
volumes  in  favor  of  the  general  character  of  his  minis- 
trations ?  What  minister  is  there,  who  has  dared  to 
utter  his  own  sentiments  from  his  own  pulpit,  who  has 
escaped  with  fewer  complaints  than  those  which  have 
been  proved  to  exist  against  the  Pastor  of  Hollis 
Street  ?  This  Council  need  not  be  told  of  the  difficul- 
ties under  which  a  minister  must  labor  in  attempting 
to  conform  to  the  tastes  and  opinions  of  his  hearers. 
Some  ask  him  to  preach  on  a  particular  subject,  as 
was  the  case  when  Mr.  Pierpont  was  requested  to  give 
his  views  of  Mr.  Parker's  sermon,  and  for  so  doing 
others  are  offended.  If  he  selects  subjects  of  local 
and  present  interest,  he  is  "  personal ''  or  "  excited." 
While,  if  for  peace  he  avoids  these,  he  grows  "  philo- 
sophical," and  ceases  to  be  interesting. 

Those  who  go  back  to  the  days  of  Dr.  West  or  Mr. 
Holley,  to  fix  a  criterion  by  which  to  test  the  preaching 
of  Mr.  Pierpont,  forget  the  changes  through  which 
the  public  mind  has  been  passing  during  the  last  thirty 
years.  The  human  mind  has  been  struggling  to  be 
free,  and  on  the  subject  of  religious  opinions  it  is 
more  free.  Men  are  more  enlightened,  in  many  res- 
pects, than  they  then  were,  and  the  past  is  not  the  best 
test  of  what  the  present  demands. 


64r 


Look  through  the  testimony  in  this  case,  and  then 
say  if  Mr.  Pierpont  has  ever  selected  a  topic  more  ex- 
citing, more  unbecoming  a  Christian  minister,  than 
"  Righteousness,  temperance,  and  the  judgment  to 
come."  And  shall  he  be  condemned  because  some 
rich  and  lordly  Felix  has  trembled  at  the  exciting  truths 
which  he  has  uttered  ? 

Is  a  minister  to  be  made  a  senseless  and  irresponsible 
automaton,  to  be  moved  like  a  piece  of  mechanism  ? 
Or  must  he  employ  his  time  in  traversing  his  parish  to 
ascertain  what  will  not  excite  or  displease  them  ?  Was 
it  by  such  a  priesthood  and  such  a  ministration,  that 
the  gospel  was  first  propagated  in  direct  warfare  with 
tlie  prejudices,  the  vices,  and  the  passions  of  the  pagan 
world  ?  Was  it  by  such  preaching,  that  Luther  awak- 
ened Europe  with  the  trumpet-call  of  the  Reforma- 
tion ?  Or  was  it  by  such  means,  that  Robinson  gath- 
ered his  church  in  the  days  of  persecution  and  danger, 
to  become  the  Mother  of  the  independent  churches  of 
New  England  ? 

May,  I  repeat,  may  all  the  world,  besides,  feel  and* 
speak  upon  the  great  questions  of  morals  that  are  agi- 
tating the  public  mind,  and  the  clergy  alone  be  forbid 
to  do  this  ?  Where  upon  this  principle  would  one  at 
least  of  their  brethren  whose  name  need  not  be  repeat- 
ed, for  it  is  famihar  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  find 
himself  placed  by  such  a  decision?  Where  would 
now  have  been  the  cause  of  "  Liberal  Christianity," 
if  such  a  doctrine  as  this  had  heretofore  prevailed  ? 
And  will  the  representatives  of  these  churches  pubhsh 


65 


to  the  world  that  they  are  ready  to  condemn  their  own 
brethren,  for  daring  to  utter  truth  too  boldly  and  fear- 
lessly ? 

Try  this"  principle  by  its  consequences.  Either  a 
minister  must  be  free,  or  his  people  have  a  right  to 
dictate  what  he  may  or  may  not  preach.  If  the  peo- 
ple have  a  right  to  dictate,  the  minister  is  bound  in 
duty  to  obey.  If  he  may  not  therefore  allude  to  im- 
prisonment for  debt,  because  Col.  Baker,  as  he  said, 
thinks  it  a  good  law,  or  the  connexion  between  moral 
and  political  duties,  because  Mr.  Crane  thinks  it  an  im- 
proper interference,  or  Abolition,  because  Mr.  Bass 
feels  that  his  relatives  at  the  south  are  thereby  affect- 
ed, or  1  emperance,  because  some  dozen  or  more  of 
his  hearers  may  be  affected  in  their  business,  why  may 
not  Mr.  Redmond,  another  of  the  Proprietors,  on  the 
same  ground,  object  to  his  preaching  a  future  state  of 
rewards  and  punishments,  because,  as  he  told  you,  he 
did  not  himself  believe  such  a  state  existed  ? 

Pause,  and  see  where  your  decision  will  lead,  before 
you  sanction  doctrines  and  consequences  like  these. 

It  is  alleged  against  Mr.  Pierpont,  that  his  manner 
of  preaching  is  excited,  that  it  wants  decorum,  gravity, 
gentleness  and  discretion. 

It  is  admitted  that  he  is  an  eloquent  man,  a  bold  and 
earnest  preacher,  and  who  does  not  know  that  zeal, 
ardor  and  excitability  are  essential  ingredients  of  elo- 
quence ?  —  God  has  joined  them  together  and  they 
cannot  be  put  asunder. 

But  was  not  this  all  known  when  he  was  settled,  and 


G6 


is  it  not  too  late  now  to  urge  these  considerations  as  a 
cause  for  dissolving  a  contract  made  with  such  a  knowl- 
edge ?  Has  he  changed  in  this  respect  by  becoming 
more  excitable  ?  Does  not  the  evidence,  if  it  shows 
any  thing,  tend  rather  to  prove  the  contrary?  Mr. 
Crane  has  given  us  to  understand  that  at  times  Mr. 
Pierpont  has  kept  back  the  full  expression  of  his  own 
feelings  and  opinions,  because  his  people  "  could  not 
bear  them  yet."  Both  Mr.  Hay  and  Deacon  Bass  say 
that  hjfe  is  less  evangelical  than  they  should  wish,  and  is 
more  philosophical  than  formerly.  What  is  to  be  un- 
derstood by  thefee  terms  is  not  exactly  defined,  but  in 
the  common  acceptation  of  the  word  ^^ philosophical,^^ 
one  would  suppose  that  it  must  imply  the  opposite  of 
excitement  —  a  calm  and  dispassionate  manner. 

Nor  caif  -it  .escape  the  observation  of  this  Council, 
that,  whether  a  manner  seems  excited  or  otherwise, 
depends  much  upon  the  state  of  mind  of  the  observer. 
If  he  sympathizes  with  the  speaker,  he  grows  uncon- 
scious even  if  he  is  ardent,  while  if  he  is  opposed  to 
him  in  his  feehngs,  the  manner  of  the  speaker  may 
seem  even  angry,  when  no  such  feeling  actually  exists 
in  his  mind. 

Are  you  prepared  to  condemn  and  expel  Mr.  Pier- 
pont from  his  pulpit,  for  the  manner  in  which  he  has 
presented  his  subjects  to  his  people  ?  What  is  to  be 
the  standard  of  zeal  and  excitability  ?  Several  of  this 
Council  have  presented  their  views  upon  questions  that 
have  arisen  during  this  trial,  and  though  each  has  been 
clear,   earnest   and  sincere  in  the  expression  of  his 


67 


opinions,  no  two  have  done  it  in  the  same  manner. 
Where  shall  we  find  the  standard  and  whose  manner 
may  be  followed,  that  of  Peter  or  of  John,  that  of 
Luther  or  that  of  Melancthon  ? 

If  the  respondent  is  to  be  condemned  on  this  charge, 
it  must  be  because  he  has  violated  some  rule  of  morals 
or  rhetoric,  and  it  is  due  to  him  and  his  people  that 
they  should  know,  from  the  result  in  this  case,  the 
extent  as  well  as  the  nature  of  his  offence. 

One  circumstance  has  been  testified  of,  which 
ought  to  be  noticed  in  this  connexion.  It  is  said  that 
his  manner  to  the  strangers  who  attended  worship  at 
this  house,  tlie  sabbath  after  his  return  from  Europe, 
was  not  courteous.  Mr.  Crane  says  he  said,  "  if  they 
came  from  curiosity,  he  pitied  them."  Mr.  Weld  says 
he  said,  "  he  saw  a  great  many  strangers  —  they  would 
be  disappointed,  he  had  nothing  to  say."  Now  how 
was  the  fact  ?  He  had  returned  from  a  long  absence, 
he  had  expected  to  meet  his  friends  alone,  and  had 
neither  time  nor  disposition  to  prepare  such  a  discourse 
as  would  gratify  the  curious  ears  of  strangers,  and  he 
frankly  stated  so,  expressing  his  regret  that  they  must 
be  disappointed.  A  grave  charge,  surely,  to  urge  now 
as  a  cause  for  his  removal ! 

A  charge,  too,  is  brought  against  Mr.  Pierpont,  on  the 
ground  of  his  "  general  demeanor."  Here,  too,  we 
have  no  standard  by  which  to  try  the  respondent.  Is 
it  not  true  that  new  additions  have  been  regularly  and 
almost  constantly  made  to  his  society  and  his  church  ? 
And  is  not  the  fact  that  such  a  large  proportion  of  his 


m 


society  have  adhered  to  him  through  all  the  trying 
scenes  in  which  he  has  been  placed,  and  that  too  with 
an  unfaltering  confidence  and  affection,  enough  to  show 
how  groundless  are  the  vague  generalities  of  this 
charge  ? 

There  is  another  subject  to  which  I  ought  to  allude, 
although  it  has  been  a  matter  of  surprise  how  it  is  be- 
fore you  at  all,  and  that  is  the  prayer  offered  by  Mr. 
P.  at  the  funeral  of  Mrs.  Stewart.  He  came  here 
prepared  to  meet  every  charge  that  could  have  existed 
against  him,  when  the  paper  of  July  1 840  was  drawn 
up,  but  he  could  not  have  anticipated,  while  proving 
those  charges,  that  evidence  would  be  offered  of  acts  or 
declarations  which  arose  during  the  following  year. 
He  has  not  therefore  attempted  to  offer  a  word  of  tes- 
timony on  the  subject,  or  even  to  cross-examine  the 
witness  by  whom  it  was  proved.  The  prayer  has  been 
described  —  some  were  pleased  while  others  were  dis- 
satisfied with  its  lanmiage.  That  there  had  existed  an 
unhappy  state  of  feehng  between  the  father  and  daugh- 
ter, appears  from  the  testimony  put  in  on  the  other  side, 
and  the  respondent  has  forborne  to  strip  the  veil  from 
the  private  history  of  that  family,  which  has  thus  been 
in  part  lifted  before  the  public  eye,  or  to  say  how  far, 
in  what  he  did,  he  followed  the  dying  request  of  one 
by  whose  remains  he  was  then  standing. 

But  I  would  ask,  if,  where  the  only  child  of  a  man 
of  princely  fortune  had  been  suffered  to  die  at  a  tav- 
ern, and  during  a  long  and  painful  sickness,  that  father 
had  visited  her  but  twice,  a  minister  who  knew  it  all. 


69 


might  not  be  pardoned  if,  in  uttering  the  deep  emo- 
tions of  his  heart,  he  did  say  "  I  thank  thee,  heavenly 
Father,  that  thou  didst  not  forsake  her  ?  " 

Here,  then,  we  have  gone  through  with  the  substance 
of  these  various  charges,  and  if  the  evidence  has 
struck  the  minds  of  the  Council  as  it  has  mine,  you  will 
say  that  not  one  of  them  all  has  been  sustained. 

And  yet  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  difficulties  exist, 
and  dissensions  have  arisen  in  this  society,  which  to 
some  seem  irreconcilable. 

If  you  seek  for  a  cause  for  these,  it  will  be  found  in  the 
evidence  that  is  before  you.  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  heart-burnings,  the  feehngs  of  coldness  towards  Mr. 
Pierpont  at  any  time,  they  had  all  ceased  —  every  thing 
had  been  reconciled,  and  he  might  have  been  the  undis- 
turbed occupant  of  the  Hollis-Street  pulpit,  if  it  had  not 
been  for  the  war  which  the  manufacturers  and  venders 
of  ardent  spirit  began  against  him  in  1838.  Here  may 
be  found  the  true  origin  of  the  present  difficulties.  And 
as  we  trace  them  in  the  order  of  events,  we  shall  find 
that  from  his  j&rst  movements  in  the  cause  of  temper- 
ance in  1838,  to  this  hour,  those  engaged' in  the  traffic 
in  alcohol  have  been  steadily  and  constantly  at  work  to 
expel  him  from  this  pulpit  —  fanning  every  other  cause 
of  jealousy  as  it  arose,  and  adding  every  new  strength 
they  could  command,  to  the  physical  power  which  they 
have  been  exerting  to  accomplish  this  purpose. 

The  attempt  has  been  made  on  the  part  of  some  of 
the  Proprietors,  through  the  whole  of  this  controversy, 
10 


70 


to  keep  the  agency  of  the  distillers  and  venders  of  ar- 
dent spirit  out  of  sight.     But  the  attempt  has  failed. 

We  were  told  in  one  part  of  the  trial,  that  dissatis- 
faction with  Mr.  Pierpont,  built  up  Mr.  Mott's  church. 
But  when  the  facts  were  inquired  into,  so  far  from  any 
hostility  existing  towards  him  on  the  part  of  that  soci- 
ety, when  the  corner-stone  of  the  church  was  laid,  he 
was  called  on  to  make  the  address.  When  the  body 
of  the  church  communicants  was  organized,  he  was 
called  on  to  officiate,  and  at  the  dedication  of  the 
house  and  the  ordination  of  their  minister,  Mr.  Pier- 
pont took  an  active  and  an  interesting  part. 

In  tracing  the  facts  which  throw  Hght  upon  the  true 
origin  and  cause  of  the  difficulties  in  HoUis-Street 
society,  dates  become  important. 

In  1835,  the  society  was,  with  a  few  exceptions,  in 
great  harmony  —  a  small  minority  existed,  but  even 
that  was  merged  in  the  general  regard  for  their  pas- 
tor, and  all  united  that  year  in  aiding  Mr.  Pierpont  to 
make  his  visit  to  Europe. 

When  he  returned,  in  August  1 836,  all  crowded  to 
welcome  him  back  to  his  pulpit,  and  the  united  con- 
gregation seem  to  have  joined  in  the  sentiments  of 
that  beautiful  Original  Hymn,  which  was  then  sung, 
and  which  has  been  read  in  your  hearing.  Even  his 
former  and  his  present  enemies  vied  with  his  friends 
and  with  each  other,  in  manifesting  their  regard  to 
him,  by  gifts  and  acts  of  kindness. 

The  "  Alton  sermon,"  in  December  1837,  gave  of- 
fence to  a  few,  but  an  explanation  followed,  a  recon- 
ciliation was  effected,  and  harmony  continued  through 


71 


1837  —  not  a  vote  had  been  passed  against  him,  nor 
had  a  person  that  we  have  heard  of,  seceded  from  his 
society  since  his  return  from  Europe. 

In  April,  1838,  the  "  License  Lavi^,"  so  called,  was 
passed  by  the  Legislature,  and  the  memorial  signed  by 
some  fifteen  thousand  petitioners,  in  answer  to  which 
that  law  was  made,  was  the  production  of  Mr.  Pier- 
pont's  pen. 

What  followed  ?  Those  whose  business  was  affected 
by  the  law  were  aroused,  and  Mr.  Pierpont  was  made 
the  object  of  their  uncompromising  hostility.  In  fact, 
it  was  the  revival  of  an  old  war. 

In  1833,  Mr.  Pierpont  made  a  speech  at  Saratoga, 
on  the  subject  of  Temperance,  which  was  falsely  re- 
ported, and  gave  great  offence  to  members  of  his 
society.  On  his  return  to  his  people,  he  publicly  and 
repeatedly  denied  having  used  the  offensive  expression 
ascribed  to  him.  But,  notwithstanding  this,  Winsor 
Fay,  a  distiller,  and  a  pew  proprietor,  but  not  a  wor- 
shipper here,  moved  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  par- 
ish, in  September  of  that  year,  to  reduce  Mr.  Pier- 
pont's  salary  ;^500.  The  motion,  however,  was  lost, 
and  nothing  more  is  seen  of  this  feeling  until  1838. 

Then,  just  before  the  annual  meeting  in  September, 
we  find  Mr.  Atkins,  a  dealer  in  ardent  spirit,  giving 
notice  to  a  friend,  that  they  were  going  to  "  turn  out " 
Mr.  Pierpont,  because  "  he  had  taken  up  this  Temper- 
ance business,  and  undertaken  to  legislate  for  tliem, 
and  they  were  determined  to  oust  him."  Accordingly, 
at  that  meeting,  Moses  Wilhams,  also  a  dealer  —  who 
had  not  been  a  worshipper  here,  nor  even  a  resident  in 


n 


the  city  for  many  years,  though  a  pew  owner,  prepared 
a  set  of  votes,  which  he  handed  to  Mr.  Weld,  another 
dealer,  who,  obviously,  for  the  sake  of  appearance, 
employed  Mr.  Crane,  who  was  not  engaged  in  the 
traffic,  to  offer  them  to  the  meeting.  This  office  Mr. 
Crane  performed,  and  the  votes  are  before  you  ;  and, 
as  you  examine  them,  you  will  find  that  they  complain 
of  Mr.  Pierpont,  not  for  neglect  of  parochial  duties  — 
nor  for  pursuing  mechanical  contrivances,  nor  for  lec- 
turing on  phrenology  —  nor  for  want  of  purity,  hones- 
ty or  integrity  —  but  "  interfering  with  the  established 
laws  of  the  land  "  —  "  the  alteration  of  old  and  the 
adoption  of  new  laws."  Can  any  mind  be  at  a  loss  to 
understand  what  is  here  intended  —  what  new  law  is 
meant  ? 

A  committee  was  raised  upon  the  subject  of  these 
complaints,  without  opposition  from  any  quarter,  an  ex- 
planation between  them  and  Mr.  Pierpont  was  had, 
and  his  reply  of  September  20,  1 838,  which  has  been 
printed,  was  made,  which  satisfied  both  Mr.  Crane, 
Mr.  Hay,  and  others,  and  every  thing  seemed  to  prom- 
ise peace  on  the  part  of  all  except  the  traffickers  in 
ardent  spirit  —  every  one  of  whom,  except  one,  resist- 
ed the  conciliatory  report  which  was  then  made  by 
that  committee  and  accepted  by  the  parish. 

In  the  winter  of  1838-9,  the  sermon  on  the 
"  Moral  Rule  of  Political  Action  "  was  preached,  and 
gave  offence  to  Mr.  Crane,  for  seeming  to  dictate  to 
him,  as  he  thought,  as  to  his  duty  as  a  legislator.  He 
charged  Mr.  Pierpont  with  thereby  violating  the  sup- 


73 


posed  pledge  embraced  in  his  letter  of  September, 
though  others  did  not  so  regard  it,  nor  was  it  so  in 
fact ;  but  he  was  at  once  received  into  the  opposition 
to  Mr.  Pierpont,  and  in  February  of  that  year,  two 
who  were  and  one  who  had  been  a  distiller,  purchased 
three  pews,  for  the  manifest  purpose  of  thereby  com- 
manding votes,  since  one  of  the  purchasers  never  had 
been  in  any  manner  connected  with  this  society,  but 
was  to  all  intents  a  stranger  in  this  controversy. 

Things  thus  remained,  so  far  as  any  open  and  visi- 
ble action  was  concerned,  until  September  1839.  In 
the  mean  time,  Mr.  Pierpont  had,  for  more  than  a  year, 
forborne  altogether  from  lecturing  on  the  subject  of 
Temperance,  or  doing  any  thing  which  could  offend 
the  most  sensitive  of  the  dealers  in  ardent  spirit.  But 
not  one  of  them  had  forgotten  or  forgiven  his  trans- 
gression. Nothing  short  of  his  abandoning  his  pulpit 
could  satisfy  them.  His  friend,  Mr.  Boyd,  procured  a 
meeting  to  be  held  of  some  of  the  leading  opponents 
of  Mr.  Pierpont,  with  himself  and  some  of  his  friends, 
to  see  what  could  be  done  in  regard  to  tliese  difficul- 
ties. 

Of  the  six  now  opposed  to  Mr.  Pierpont,  who  were 
present  on  that  occasion,  four  were  or  had  been  en- 
gaged in  the  traffic  in  spirits ;  while  Mr.  Smith,  one  of 
the  remaining  two,  says  he  was  "  but  a  listener"  there. 
Mr.  Smith,  though  called  on  the  other  side,  has,  with 
that  frankness  and  honesty  with  which  he  has  through- 
out testified  in  this  case,  told  us  what  took  place  at 
that  meeting  at  Mr.  Everett's.     "  They  tried  to  per- 


74 


suade  him  to  alter  his  course  as  to  lecturing  abroad  on 
Temperance."  Mr.  Everett  says,  "  it  was  proposed  to 
guaranty  his  salary  to  him  one  year,  if  he  would  quit 
his  pulpit ;  "  and  "  it  was  understood  that  the  subject 
was  to  be  brought  up  at  the  next  meeting,"  which  was 
in  fact,  to  be  the  next  day. 

The  meeting  at  Mr.  Everett's,  did  not  result  in  any 
concihation.  Mr.  Pierpont  would  neither  pledge,  nor 
sell  himself — the  wealth  of  all  the  distillers  in  Chris- 
tendom could  not  buy  him  ;  and  the  next  day  the  war 
was  again  openly  declared  against  him. 

Mr.  Fay  made  the  first  motion,  but  gave  way  to  Mr. 
Weld,  who,  in  the  preamble  and  vote  that  he  offered, 
alludes  to  the  discussion  by  Mr.  Pierpont  of  "certain 
exciting  topics."  It  is  true  they  are  not  named,  but  no 
one  can  be  at  a  loss  to  understand  what  topics  were 
meant ;  and  the  action  proposed  was,  that  the  connex- 
ion between  him  and  his  society  should  be  dissolved. 

His  opponents  were  not  willing  that  the  subject  of 
their  difficulties  should  be  referred  to  a  council  —  they 
thought  they  could  remove  him  by  the  mere  force  of 
numbers,  and  rejected  the  proposal  for  such  a  refer- 
ence. This  was  at  the  meeting  of  the  14th  October  ; 
but  at  the  meeting  of  Nov.  11,  1839,  the  report  of  the 
Committee  insisting  upon  the  dismissal  of  Mr.  Pierpont 
was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  69  to  59,  and  the  freedom  of 
the  pulpit  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  67  to  5. 

What  then  was  done  ?  —  did  the  minority  yield  ?  — 
was  the  principle  now  so  strenuously  contended  for  by 
Mr.  Hay  and  others  carried  out  into  practice  r     So  far 


75 


from  it,  the  money  power  of  the  opposition  was  put  in 
requisition  in  buying  up  votes,  not  in  the  form  of  men, 
but  in  that  of  pews  —  a  thing  more  consonant  to  the 
usages  of  an  Enghsh  hustings  than  of  a  Boston  church 
of  Christians.  And,  as  we  shall  see,  this  money  power 
was  all  directed  by  the  interests  of  the  traffickers  in 
ardent  spirit. 

Winsor  Fay  a  distiller,  but  not  a  worshipper,  had 
acquired  three  pews,  one  in  February,  one  in  Septem- 
ber, and  one  in  October.  Jona.  Minott,  a  stranger, 
and  a  distiller,  had  purchased  one  in  February.  Jabez 
Fisher,  lately,  but  not  then,  a  distiller,  had  purchased 
one  at  the  same  time.  Daniel  Weld,  a  dealer,  had 
acquired  one  in  September.  And  William  C,  a  son  of 
Winsor  Fay,  himself  a  distiller,  had  purchased  two  in 
October.  But  as  these  eight  pews  did  not  command  a 
majority  of  tlie  votes,  after  the  November  meeting  and 
before  that  of  March  1840,  a  fund  of  between  1700  and 
1 800  dollars  was  raised  by  the  Proprietors  to  purchase 
up  pews,  and  eleven  or  tivelve  were  bought  in  the  name 
of  John  D.  Weld,  a  son  of  Daniel,  not  a  worshipper  in 
this  society,  and  himself  a  dealer  in  ardent  spirit,  and 
thereby  the  majority  of  votes  was  secured  to  their 
interest. 

It  is  said,  in  answer  to  this,  that  the  friends  of  Mr. 
Pierpont  also  purchased  pews.  If  they  did  so,  it  was 
in  self-defence,  and,  with  one  exception,  only  by  those 
who  occupied  the  pews  that  they  purchased..  No 
stranger  bought  in  to  aid  the  friends  of  the  pastor. 
As  we  follow  on  in  the  history  of  this  struggle,  we  find 


7« 


that  tlie  moment  the  opponents  of  the  pastor  have 
acquired  strength  sufficient  to  control  the  vote,  they  are 
again  in  action.  In  January  1840,  "  a  committee  of  a 
large  number  of  the  Proprietors,  &;c."  propose  to  his 
friends  "  an  amicable  dissolution  of  the  connexion 
between  the  society  and  Mr.  Pierpont," — and  here 
again  four  out  of  six  of  this  committee  were  or  had 
been  interested  in  the  traffic.  A  reply  was  made  to 
this  proposal  by  one  hundred  and  eighteen  persons,  of 
whom  forty-seven  were  pew  owners,  in  which  they 
express  a  willingness  to  adopt  measures  "  for  restoring 
union  and  harmony,  leaving  the  question  as  to  the 
means  of  accomplishing  that  object,  open  to  both  par- 
ties." The  idea  of  any  proposition  which  should 
recognize  the  possibility  of  Mr.  Pierpont's  remaining 
their  pastor,  seems  to  have  been  repelled  by  his 
opponents,  and  in  March  1840  the  Proprietors  again 
met.  Daniel  Weld,  ever  among  the  first  to  act,  offers 
the  vote  "we  no  longer  wish  the  services  of  John 
Pierpont,"  and  it  was  carried  by  a  majority  of  12,  there 
having  been  56  in  favor,  68  against,  and  one  blank, 
making  125  in  the  whole.  It  ought  however  to  be 
remembered  that  there  have  been,  throughout  this 
controversy,  "  neutrals,^^  as  they  have  been  called  in 
the  society,  who  have  declined  taking  any  part  in  it. 

These  125  votes  were  cast  by  91  persons,  50  of 
whom  were  in  favor  of  Mr.  Pierpont  and  41  against 
him,  so  that  while  counting  by  pews  the  majority  was 
12  against  him,  if  persons  only  had  been  counted  there 
was  a  majority  of  9  in  his  favor.     Of  the  50  who  were 


77 


in  his  favor,  44  were  worshippers  in  the  society,  while 
of  the  41  opposed  to  him,  31  only  worshipped  here, 
making  in  that  mode  of  computation  a  majority  of  13 
worshippers  in  his  favor. 

Of  the  10  non-worshipping  proprietors,  six,  all  of 
whom  were  engaged  in  the  traffic,  cast  nineteen  votes, 
which  was  seven  more  than  the  whole  majority  against 
him. 

Of  the  41  opposed  to  him  19  were,  or  had  been, 
dealers  in  ardent  spirit,  and  in  their  own  right  carried 
38  of  the  whole  68  votes  that  were  cast  against  him. 

Who  will  say  in  view  of  these  facts  that  Temperance 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  origin  and  progress  of  this 
difficulty  !  For  what  cause  but  this  was  a  single  one 
of  the  traffickers  opposed  to  Mr.  Pierpont  ?  Some  of 
them  have  been  upon  the  stand,  and  what  one  of  them 
has  spoken  of  his  own  opposition  on  any  other  ground  ? 
For  what  other  cause  could  those  Proprietors,  who 
became  such  merely  to  control  votes  have  been  op- 
posed to  him  ? 

Take  away  the  votes  of  the  six  absentee  traffickers 
who  voted  as  Proprietors,  and  the  majority  would  still 
have  remained  in  favor  of  a  Free  Pulpit. 

It  will  be  remarked  that  I  am  not  now  discussing  the 
propriety  of  these  votes,  or  who  shall  govern  —  men  or 
pews,  —  but  they  have  been  referred  to,  to  show  what 
the  traffic  in  rum  and  Temperance  have  had  to  do 
with  the  dissensions  existing  in  HoUis-Street  Society. 

It  is  not  manly  to  attempt  to  evade  or  deny  tlieir 
agency,  and  it  hardly  seems  too  much  to  affirm  that 
11 


78 


such  would  not  have  been  the  case  in  1838,  when  the 
tide  of  pubUc  feeling  seemed  to  be  setting  against  the 
License  law  and  its  advocates. 

Mr.  Smith,  hke  a  bold  and  honest  man,  tells  us  frank- 
ly how  it  is.  "  The  complaints  that  led  to  the  measures 
of  September,  1838,  were  induced  by  those  who  sold 
ardent  spirits."  "  I  recollect  no  complaint  at  Mr.  Ev- 
erett's, against  Mr.  Pierpont,  but  his  lecturing  on  Tem- 
perance." Mr.  Bradlee  says  the  subject  of  Temperance 
was  discussed  at  Mr-.  Everett's,  but  he  thinks  it  was 
not  the  only  cause  of  difficulty  among  them.  Mr. 
Weld  says  that  "  the  first  serious  thing  in  the  way  of 
difficulty  was  at  the  annual  meeting  in  1838."  Mr. 
Atkins  has  told  us  what  he  was  dissatisfied  with  was, 
his  engaging  in  getting  the  "  fifteen  gallon  law  "  made. 
It  was  undertaking  "to  legislate  for  us."  He  says, 
however,  that  was  not  the  only  cause  of  objection  in 
his  mind. 

And  if  we  look  at  the  charges  before  us,  we  shall 
find  this  very  matter  of  Temperance  and  the  License 
law,  in  substance,  if  not  in  so  many  words,  spread 
upon  the  record  as  "  grounds  of  complaint."  In  fact, 
if  we  take  away  these,  who  does  not  see  that  there  is 
not  enough  left  to  sustain  an  opposition  for  a  single 
hour. 

We  have  chiefly  confined  our  view  to  the  evidence 
that  has  come  in  on  the  other  side,  and  when  we  revert 
to  what  has  been  testified  of  by  the  witnesses  in  behalf 
of  Mr.  Pierpont,  every  position  that  I  have  taken  is 
confirmed. 


79 

These  witnesses  all  testify  to  their  unqualified  belief, 
that  temperance  is  the  moving  cause  of  these  difficul- 
ties, and  you  have  seen  the  opportunities  they  have 
had  to  form  a  correct  judgment  upon  the  subject. 

It  is  said  the  dealers  deny  this  position.  It  is  true 
they  do  now,  when  no  man  would  have  the  hardihood 
to  avow  the  agency  of  such  a  cause.  But  we  show 
where  the  dealers  have  always  been  found  in  this  con- 
troversy, and  against  their  professions  the  old  homely 
adage  may  well  apply,  that  "  actions  speak  louder  than 
words."  Dr.  White  has  told  you  of  the  influence 
which  has  been  exerted  in  this  matter  by  his  kinsman, 
Mr.  Moses  Williams,  and  the  records  and  other  testi- 
mony show  the  same  fact.  And  Dea.  May  has  told 
you  what  he,  of  his  own  personal  knowledge,  knows 
upon  the  subject. 

Before,  however,  considering  his  testimony,  it  is  pro- 
per to  dwell  for  one  minute  upon  the  attempt  which 
has  been  made  to  invalidate  it.  It  was  perceived,  the 
very  first  day  of  the  trial,  that  there  was  a  determined 
purpose  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  witnesses,  to  crush 
not  only  Mr.  Pierpont,  but  those  who  dared  to  stand 
by  him  as  friends;  and  so  apparent  was  this  in  the 
attacks  made  upon  Dea.  May,  who  had  not  then  been 
called  in  the  case,  that  the  Council  very  properly  inter- 
fered and  arrested  the  remarks  of  the  witness.  This 
spirit  has  been  manifested  through  the  whole  trial,  and 
now  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  impeach  him  by  the 
contradictory  statements  of  Mr.  Crane,  Mr.  Weld,  and 
Mr.  Smith.     This  must  have  grown  out  of  a  misappre- 


80 


hension  which  it  is  not  difficult  to  reconcile,  and  yet 
leave  both  parties  free  from  the  imputation  of  inten- 
tional misrepresentation. 

Mr.  Crane  has  more  than  once  stated  that  Deacon 
May  in  speaking  to  him  of  thfe  sermon  on  the  "  Moral 
Rule  of  Political  Action,"  said  in  substance,  that  the 
minister  was  a  fool  for  preaching  such  a  sermon  ;  and 
this  Deacon  May  denies.  Now  it  is  to  be  regretted 
that  so  much  of  this  case  has  had  to  rest  upon  the 
shoulders  of  Mr.  Crane.  He  has  told  us  how  much  of 
the  preparatory  labor  has  been  done  by  him.  He  has 
shown  how  much  feeling  he  has  upon  the  subject ;  he 
has  been  again  and  again  upon  the  stand  whenever  the 
occasion  called  for  the  aid  of  his  testimony ;  and  now 
he  has  been  called  in  to  impeach  and  invalidate  the 
testimony  of  a  witness  standing  in  this  community  hke 
Deacon  May. 

Unfortunately  for  Mr.  Crane,  it  is  not  credible  that 
Deacon  May  could  have  used  the  language  ascribed  to 
him.  He  was  Mr.  Pierpont's  friend,  and  there  is  noth- 
ing about  that  sermon,  if  he  had  not  been,  on  which 
he  could  have  predicated  the  charge  of  being  a  fool, 
upon  its  author.  The  sermon  will  not  warrant  such 
an  idea  for  a  moment.  The  truth  was,  Mr.  Crane  was 
very  much  excited ;  he  had  a  hasty  conversation  with 
Deacon  May,  in  the  street,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  in 
recaUing  it,  he  conceived  an  erroneous  impression  as 
to  what  actually  was  said  by  himself,  and  what  by  Dea- 
con May,  and  confounded  them  in  his  mind.  He  has 
shown  how  hable  his  judgment  is  to  err  on  a  subject 


81 


upon  which  he  feels  so  much,  in  the  case  of  the  pre- 
tended pledge  of  Mr.  Pierpont,  contained  in  his  letter 
of  September,  1838.  He  believed  the  pledge  to  be 
there  ;  but  when  you  sought  for  it,  was  not  the  search 
a  vain  one  ?  And  did  not  the  friends  of  Mr.  Pierpont 
repel  the  idea  of  a  pledge,  the  very  time  the  letter 
was  read  ? 

In  regard  to  the  contradiction  of  Mr.  May,  by  Mr. 
Weld,  it  is  by  no  means  remarkable  that  he  should  not 
recollect  the  conversation  spoken  of.  He  was  very 
active  in  this  controversy,  again  and  again,  at  Deacon 
May's  counting  room,  conversing  upon  it,  and  was  fre- 
quently conversing  upon  it  elsewhere  ;  and  it  would 
not  be  strange  if  he  had  forgotten  it.  On  the  other 
hand,  would  Deacon  May  have  gone  into  the  street  to 
inquire  in  regard  to  Mr.  Homer,  if  he  had  not  heard 
the  statement  of  which  he  speaks,  or  would  he  have 
gone  home  to  his  own  family  and  told  them  what  was 
not  true  ?  And  more  than  all  that,  the  conduct  of  Mr. 
Weld  has  been  shown  to  be  perfectly  consistent  with 
what  he  stated  to  Deacon  May  in  regard  to  his  belief 
that  Mr.  Pierpont  would  be  obliged  to  leave  his  society. 

The  testimony  of  Deacon  May  in  regard  to  the 
declarations  of  the  dealers  in  ardent  spirit,  renders  their 
agency  in  this  matter,  if  any  further  proof  were  needed, 
clear  beyond  contradiction.  Moses  WiUiams  declared 
to  him  that  he  would  not  support  a  man  who  was  trying 
to  hurt  his  business.  At  the  interview  of  the  commit- 
tee with  Mr.  Pierpont,  in  1838,  Mr.  Howard,  though 
not  a  dealer,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Child  who  had  been, 


S2! 


when  pointing  out  to  Mr.  Pierpont  the  consequences  of 
his  course,  said,  "  these  men  are  engaged  in  what  they 
think  an  honorable  business,  and  if  he  did  not  let  them 
alone,  they  would  not  him."  Winsor  Fay  complained, 
even  with  profanity,  of  Mr.  Pierpont,  that  he  would 
not  let  their  business  alone,  and  Mr.  Weld,  after  allu- 
ding to  a  rumor  that  Mr.  Homer  had  been  turned  out 
of  his  society  for  meddling  with  Temperance,  insisted 
that  Mr.  Pierpont  would  be  turned  out  fo  his,  if  he  did 
not  let  it  alone. 

And  where  do  we  find  one  dealer  in  ardent  spirit  that 
sustains  Mr.  Pierpont,  or  one  Temperance  man  who  is 
opposed  to  him  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact  proved  in  this  case, 
that  the  moment  one  of  his  opponents  joins  in  the 
Temperance  movements  of  the  day,  he  is  no  longer 
found  in  the  ranks  of  the  opposition  ?  I  will  not  deal 
in  too  strong  terms,  but  I  would  ask  my  friend,  the 
junior  counsel  on  the  other  side,  if  this  was  a  charge 
against  these  gentlemen  for  a  conspiracy  to  injure  and 
drive  Mr.  Pierpont  from  his  pulpit,  whether  he,  in  his 
capacity  as  a  prosecuting  officer,  if  within  his  cogni- 
zance, could  fail  to  convict  them  upon  acts  and  decla- 
rations so  numerous  and  so  coincident  as  these  ? 
"  We  come,  then,  to  the  great  question  in  this  case,  — 
sTiall  Mr.  Pierpont  be  expelled  from  his  pulpit,  for  the 
interest  he  has  taken  in  the  cause  of  Temperance  ? 

What  has  he  done?  He  has  not,  for  many  years, 
preached  it  in  his  pulpit.  He  has  lectured  abroad,  and 
on  one  occasion  prepared  a  memorial  to  the  Legislature. 
This  seems  to  be  the  extent  of  his  offence,  even  on 
this  subject. 


83 


So  far  as  the  memorial  is  concerned,  it  is  now  before 
you,  among  these  printed  documents,  and  has  it  been 
pretended  that  the  facts  it  refers  to  are  not  true,  that 
its  facts  and  its  arguments  are  not  morally  and  po- 
litically true  ?  And  if  they  are,  may  not  a  minister, 
as  a  minister^  and  as  a  man,  raise  his  voice  against  the 
traffic  in  alcohol  ? 

If  inspiration  is  true,  if  the  gates  of  heaven  are 
closed  against  the  drunkard,  may  not  he  whose  care 
is  for  the  souls  of  men  do  any  thing  to  arrest  the  power 
of  this  soul-destroyer  ?  The  voice  of  the  people  and 
the  press  through  tlie  land  have  answered  this  in  regard 
to  the  very  matter  now  before  you. 

Do  what  the  opponents  of  Mr.  Pierpont  may,  the 
cause  of  Temperance  cannot  be  arrested.  Galileo 
may  be  shut  up  in  prison,  but  the  earth  will  still  move 
on  its  orbit.  The  distiller  and  the  rumseller  may 
shut  the  doors  of  the  HoUis-Street  Church  against  the 
light,  but  they  cannot  roll  back  the  tide  that  is  over- 
whelming their  traffic. 

In  this  connexion  Mr.  Pierpont  has  been  made  the 
exponent  of  a  great  principle,  and  that  is,  the  Freedom 
of  the  Pulpit. 

To  which  hereafter  shall  our  clergy  minister,  the 
the  temporal  and  eternal  well-being  of  the  human  race, 
or  the  cupidity,  the  arrogance,  the  intolerance  of  wealth 
wrung,  it  may  be,  from  suffering  wives  and  children, 
garnered  up  from  the  ruined  fortunes  of  the  miserable 
—  the  merchandise  that  beggars  the  soul  of  the  buyer, 
to  build  palaces  and  give  power  to  the  seller  ? 


May  Father  Mathew  go  through  the  land  cheered 
with  the  prayers  and  blessings  of  Catholic  millions, 
and  the  tongue  of  a  Protestant  minister  be  silenced  by 
a  Protestant  council  in  the  city  of  Boston  at  the  beck 
and  bidding  of  the  distiller  and  the  rumseller  ? 

As  far  as  arresting  the  progress  of  Temperance  is 
concerned,  such  a  course  would  be  futile.  Temper- 
ance will  triumph  as  certainly  as  the  Christian  Religion, 
and  the  time  will  come  when  the  poor  man's  bread  will 
no  longer  be  changed  into  the  poor  man's  poison. 

Among  the  grounds  of  complaint  upon  which  no 
small  reliance  seems  to  have  been  placed,  is  the  man- 
ner in  which  Mr.  Pierpont  has  carried  on  this  very 
controversy.  It  is  said  to  be  "  harsh,  contemptuous, 
vindictive,"  &c. 

Has  any  man  before  you  ever  intimated  that  Mr. 
Pierpont  ever  treated  any  one  in  private  with  a  want 
of  courtesy?  The  evidence  is  all  to  the  contrary. 
So  far  as  his  correspondence  is  concerned,  it  has  been 
shown  that  it  was  all  submitted  to  and  approved  by  his 
friends,  before  it  was  made  pubhc.  And  to  whom  else 
should  a  man,  situate  as  Mr.  Pierpont  has  been,  go,  or 
whose  counsel  take  as  his  guide,  if  not  his  friends'? 

Has  it  been  shown  that  he  has  ever  written,  or  pub- 
lished, or  said,  what  was  untrue  or  unwarranted  by 
facts  ?  The  attempt  to  do  this  in  one  particular  has 
already  been  considered,  and  need  not  be  alluded  to 
again. 

The  truth  is,  Mr.  Pierpont  was  driven  to  the  wall 
before  he  turned  at  all  upon  his  pursuers,  and  then  only 
in  his  own  defence.     Will  it  be  contended  before  this 


85 


Council,  that  a  minister,  because  he  is  such,  may 
be  assailed  with  all  the  bitterness  of  malice,  and  yet 
be  not  permitted  to  defend  his  character,  which  to  a 
clergyman  is  his  all  ? 

If  the  charges  against  the  respondent  are  true,  they 
are  enough  not  only  to  drive  him  from  the  pulpit,  but 
from  all  decent  society.  Why  then  make  the  manner 
in  which  he  defends  himself  against  these  charges,  a 
substantive  ground  of  offence  ?  If  they  are  true,  this 
new  ground  is  not  needed.  If  they  are  false,  what 
language  can  be  too  strong  for  an  injured  man  to  use  ? 
If  the  charges  are  groundless,  is  the  man  who  has  been 
suffering  under  this  baseless  calumny  to  be  turned  out 
of  his  pastoral  office,  for  feeUng  hke  a  man  and  speak- 
ing like  a  husband  and  a  father. 

Go  through  the  letters,  and,  bearing  in  mind  the 
circumstances  under  which  they  were  produced,  judge 
ye  if  he  was  not  justified  in  all  that  he  has  written. 
His  first  was  the  September  letter  of  1838,  to  which 
even  his  most  captious  enemy  does  not  object.  The 
next  was  written  in  September,  1 839,  and  in  it  he  claims 
hat  his  pulpit  should  be  free,  that  Temperance  is  the 
cause  of  their  difficulties,  and  suggests  two  courses, 
one  of  which  might  be  taken  to  put  an  end  to  tlie 
dispute.  The  next  is  the  one  already  referred  to  in 
which  he  had  offered  to  submit  the  dispute  to  a  council. 
And  the  next  is  the  one  in  which  he  replied  to  the  report 
of  the  Proprietors,  which  had  already  been  published 
in  the  newspapers,  holding  him  up  to  ridicule  for  having 
made  stoves,  and  screws,  and  razor  strops.  The  next 
12 


86 


letter  in  this  correspondence  was  written  in  answer 
to  the  vote  of  March,  1840  —  declaring  that  the  Pro- 
prietors no  longer  wished  his  services  —  and  the  last 
is  of  the  date  of  November,  1 840,  and  was  written 
after  the  charges  affecting  his  moral  character  had  been 
spread  on  tlie  record,  and  an  attempt  had  been  made 
to  evade  the  trial  of  them  by  tlie  substitution  of  new 
charges  in  tlieir  stead. 

These  are  the  circumstances,  in  brief,  under  which 
these  letters  were  written,  and  as  to  their  matter,  they 
speak  for  themselves.  They  have  been  read  through 
this  wide  land,  and  wherever  they  have  gone,  they 
have  found  a  hearty  response  from  a  free  press,  and  a 
generous  minded  pubhc.  This  Council  may  condemn 
Mr.  Pierpont  for  having  thus  defended  himself,  but  the 
letters  will  still  be  read,  and  the  measures  of  the  Hol- 
lis-Street  Proprietors  will  be  remembered  so  long  as 
beauty  and  strength  of  language,  clearness  of  style, 
energy  of  thought,  and  a  fearless  avowal  of  honest  and 
noble  sentiments  shall  continue  to  find  admirers. 

As  a  last  and  crowning  charge,  in  the  manner  in 
which  it  seems  to  have  stood  out  in  this  trial,  is  the 
neglect  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Pierpont  to  conciliate 
his  opposers,  and  thereby  restore  peace  to  his  society. 

If  there  has  been  fault  in  this  respect  on  either  side, 
where  docs  it  lie  ? 

In  order  to  settle  this  question,  we  must  again  go 
over  some  of  these  facts,  and  see  how  they  bear  upon 
this  matter  of  conciliation. 

Every  thing  was  harmonious  till  1838,  when  a  dis- 


87 


content  arose  on  account  of  temperance.  He  yields 
to  this,  and  from  August  1838,  to  November  1839, 
never  makes  a  single  lecture  or  sermon  on  the  subject. 
Not  only  so,  but  when  in  September  of  '38,  a  commit- 
tee wait  upon  him  in  regard  to  the  difficulties,  he 
comes  at  once  into  their  views,  writes  a  letter  which 
satisfies  his  strongest  opposers,  and  yet  to  a  concilia- 
tory report  from  that  committee,  every  dealer  in  ar- 
dent spirit,  except  one,  was  opposed,  and  Mr.  Crane 
says  he  was  complained  of  by  several,  for  what  he  did 
towards  a  reconciliation  at  that  time. 

Whose  was  the  spirit  or  the  act  of  conciliation  thus 
far  ?  The  same  persons  who,  in  September  1 838, 
resisted  conciliation,  in  1 839,  make  known  their  deter- 
mination that  he  shall  abandon  his  pulpit,  and  the  only 
compromise  they  are  wilUng  to  extend,  is  a  year's  sala- 
ry if  he  will  voluntarily  resign  —  a  sum  of  money  for 
the  abandonment  of  a  principle  ! 

He  refused  to  pledge  himself,  and  the  next  day  the 
vote  was  offered  that  the  connexion  ought  to  he  dissolved. 
On  his  part,  Mr.  Pierpont  insisted  that  his  pulpit  should 
be  free,  but  the  dissolution  of  the  connexion  is  insisted 
upon  by  a  vote  of  sixty-three  to  sixty.  Soon  after  this, 
Mr.  Pierpont,  through  Mr.  Boyd,  proposes  to  submit 
all  these  difficulties  to  a  mutual  council,  and  this  is 
met  by  a  rejection  on  the  part  of  the  Proprietors' 
committee,  and  a  holding  him  up  to  ridicule  in  the 
public  newspapers. 

What  more  could  have  been  done  by  the  respon- 
dent ?     The  Proprietors  would  neither  offer  terms,  nor 


88 


accept  tliem,  and  when  they  resorted  to  ridicule  as  a 
weapon,  how  otherwise  could  they  be  met,  than  by 
the  same  engine,  tlie  press  ?  It  was  not  a  case  for 
grave  argument  —  he  must  either  submit  in  silence,  to 
his  own  and  his  friends'  discomfiture,  or  reply  in  the 
only  way  in  his  power,  by  showing  how  ridiculous 
were  the  charges,  and  how  unworthy  they  were  of  a 
serious  reply.  And  it  is  not  too  much  to  conjecture, 
that  one  great  cause  of  the  deep  feeling  manifested  by 
some  of  the  Proprietors  against  Mr.  Pierpont,  may  be 
traced  to  the  fact,  that  the  weapon  they  employed 
against  him  was  found  to  have  a  keener  edge  in  his 
hand,  than  what  they  had  been  able  to  give  to  it. 

So  if  we  trace  through  this  whole  controversy  from 
1 838,  to  the  present  time,  there  has  never  been  any 
proposition  made  or  listened  to,  by  the  Proprietors, 
which  recognized  the  possibility  of  Mr.  Pierpont's  re- 
maining their  pastor.  The  only  alternative  left  him 
was  to  go  voluntarily,  or  go  by  force.  In  the  view  of 
this,  and  of  the  feelings  which  were  openly  manifested 
towards  him  by  Moses  WilUams,  Mr.  Weld,  and  Mr. 
Fay,  Mr.  Pierpont  owed  it  to  a  proper  sense  of  self- 
respect,  to  withhold  any  further  advances,  when  he 
knew  they  would  be  rejected  with  indignity. 

But  it  is  said  he  ought  to  have  resigned,  that  he  was 
obstinate,  and  that  he  should  have  sacrificed  his  own 
feelings  to  the  peace  of  his  society.  All  this  he  was 
ready  and  offered  to  do,  but  he  was  the  minister  of  a 
whole  people,  and  was  as  much  bound  to  consult  the 
wishes  of  one  part,  as  of  the  other.     He  was  ready  to 


89 


give  up  the  difference  between  his  salary,  and  that  paid 
to  Mr.  Holly,  since  some  had  made  objection  to  this, 
and  the  letter  of  resignation  which  he  prepared  in  view 
of  these  difficulties  has  been  read  before  you.  The  only 
reason  why  it  was  not  offered  at  a  regular  meeting  of 
the  Proprietors,  was  the  opposition  of  his  friends, 
whose  wishes  he  was  bound  to  regard,  and  who  assured 
him  it  would  do  no  good,  for  if  offered  it  would  not 
be  accepted.  And  the  motives  on  the  part  of  his 
friends  for  so  doing,  have  already  been  explained  to 
you,  and  are  alike  honorable  to  their  foresight  and 
their  independence.  They  saw  the  spirit  that  was 
awakened  on  the  part  of  the  traffickers  in  alcohol, 
they  saw  their  determination  to  silence  or  muzzle  the 
pulpit,  they  saw  that  if  success  crowned  these  efforts 
in  regard  to  the  pulpit  of  Holhs  Street,  the  other  pul- 
pits in  Boston  must  follow  in  their  turn,  and  they  were 
willing  to  make  a  stand  here  in  favor  of  a  principle  in 
which  every  Christian  society  in  the  country  was  inter- 
ested. And  the  vote  of  the  November  meeting,  1839, 
shew  that  in  this  sentiment  a  majority  of  this  society 
concurred. 

This,  by  the  doctrine  now  contended  for  by  the  Pro- 
prietors, ought  to  have  settled  the  question  conclusive- 
ly. Instead  of  that,  however,  instead  of  doing  any 
thing  to  conciliate  or  admit  of  conciliation,  the  Pro- 
prietors renew  their  efforts  to  eject  the  pastor  from  his 
pulpit.  Wealth  is  lavished  for  this  purpose,  strangers 
are  brought  in  to  decide  by  their  votes,  that  the  peo- 
ple of  HoUis  Street  society  shall  not  enjoy  the  minis- 


90 


trations  of  the  man  of  their  choice,  until  in  this  way 
the  majority  of  the  wooden  partitions  which  constitute 
the  pews  was  obtained  against  him,  while  the  majority 
of  souls  continued  and  has  ever  remained  in  his  favor. 

Concession  there  has  been  none  on  the  part  of  his 
opposers  —  witness  after  witness  have  declared  that  he 
ivould  not  come  back  into  the  society  if  Mr.  P.  re- 
mained. And  must,  nay,  can  the  conciUation  be  all  on 
one  side  ?  His  opponents  admit  that  he  has  been  hon- 
est and  sincere  in  uttering  his  sentiments,  and  had  he 
not  been,  he  had  only  to  hold  his  peace  to  insure  him 
quiet.  And  was  the  pastor  the  only  one  to  act  in  this 
business  of  allaying  difficulties  ? 

If  any  door  for  conciliation  had  been  left  after  the 
vote  of  March  1840,  it  was  effectually  shut  by  the 
charges  of  April  6,  in  which  the  Proprieters  declare 
his  office  forfeited,  among  other  things,  for  indecency^ 
dishonesty,  and  falsehood. 

You  have  seen  on  the  other  side,  what  Mr.  Pierpont 
did,  and  what  he  forbore,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  and 
yet  with  all  his  effiDrts,  unwearied  as  they  were,  in 
avoiding  offensive  topics,  in  visiting  among  his  people, 
in  courteous  demeanor,  and  devoted  attention,  not 
one  of  the  movers  in  this  warfare  were  reconciled,  but 
on  the  contrary,  at  the  first  moment  when  they  could 
act,  they  acted,  to  a  man,  against  him.  And  when  has 
the  time  been  since  September,  1839,  when,  had  he 
sought  it  ever  so  much,  Mr.  Pierpont  could  have  ap- 
proached these  men  to  conciliate  them  ?  Nothing,  in 
short,  was  left  for  him,  but  to  defend  himself,  and  his 


91 


character  before  tlie  world,  by  publishing  the  truth. 
And  for  publishing  the  truth,  he  is  now  to  be  con- 
demned for  neglecting  his  duty  in  not  concihating 
his  people  :  Can  the  charge  be  sustained  for  a  moment  ? 

We  have  now  gone  through  with  these  charges,  and 
the  interesting  question  remains,  in  view  of  all  the 
case,  what  shall  this  Council  do  ?  Their  course  seems 
to  me  to  be  plain.  The  hue  is  drawn  which  is  to 
guide  them,  as  well  in  their  investigations,  as  their  re- 
sult. If  they  remove  Mr.  Pierpont  at  all,  it  must  be 
by  determining  that  the  "  grounds  of  complaint  "  are 
the  "  reasons  for  dissolving  his  connexion."  And  this 
position  is  the  more  confidently  urged,  because  in  look- 
ing into  the  correspondence  in  this  case,  it  will  appear 
that  eight  out  of  the  twelve  churches  here  assembled, 
at  a  former  ineffectual  meeting  in  Council,  so  under- 
stood the  limits  of  their  duty. 

It  was  on  this  ground  that  the  generous  proffer  of 
this  Council  to  act  in  this  case  was  accepted,  and  any 
essential  departure  from  it,  might  throw  suspicions 
upon  the  honorable  motives  which  dictated  such  a 
proffer. 

If  the  "  grounds"  are  not  true,  there  is  nothing  more 
for  this  Council  to  do.  If  any  part  of  them  are  true, 
is  it  such  as  ought  to  result  in  a  dissolution  of  tlie  con- 
nexion between  Mr.  Pierpont  and  his  society,  or 
merely  in  advising  them  how  these  difficulties  can  best 
be  healed  ? 

The  legal  rights  of  the  respondent  are  in  every  re- 
spect as  valid  as  those  of  the  disaffected  who  would 


92 


deprive  him  of  them.  This  Council,  or  any  court, 
have  no  more  right  to  release  one  party  from  the  obli- 
gation of  tlieir  contract,  on  the  plea  of  expediency, 
or  the  general  notion  of  propriety,  than  to  impose  a 
double  burden  upon  the  other  party.  They  can  no 
more  release  the  Proprietors  on  such  a  ground  from 
paying  the  salary  due  to  Mr.  Pierpont,  than  to  compel 
them  to  pay  a  double  salary,  or  absolve  him  from  the 
performance  of  all  duty  in  his  office. 

There  has  been,  through  the  whole  of  this  trial,  an 
apparent  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Proprietors,  to 
escape  from  the  real  questions  between  the  parties,  and 
to  rest  upon  certain  general  considerations  of  probable 
or  possible  expediency,  as  a  rule  by  which  the  Council 
should  be  guided.  Upon  such  a  ground,  if  the  exist- 
ence of  difficulties  is  to  be  the  evidence  by  which  it  is 
sustained,  no  minister  could  ever  be  safe.  Let  some 
rich  and  influential  member  of  a  society  make  up  his 
mind,  from  any  cause,  to  displace  its  pastor,  and  all  that 
he  has  to  do  is  to  create  and  foment  dissensions  there, 
and  then,  make  the  existence  of  these  the  cause  of 
sacrificing  the  innocent  party. 

The  question  of  expediency  not  only  is  one  which 
has  not  been  submitted  by  the  agreement  of  these 
parties,  but  there  are  third  parties  interested  in  its 
decision  who  are  not  and  cannot  be  heard  here,  and 
that  is  those  who  worship  in  this  house.  To  them  it  is 
a  question  of  deep  moment,  whether  their  Pastor  shall 
be  displaced,  and  if  this  is  to  depend  upon  tlie  probable 
balance  of  good  or  evil  which  may  result  from  such  a 


93 


measure,  surely,  before  their  rights  and  interests  shall 
be  sacrificed,  they  ought  to  be  heard. 

But  the  respondent,  so  far  as  he  is  concerned,  would 
not  shrink  for  a  moment  from  meeting  his  opposers, 
even  on  this  ground,  if  it  was  open  to  them. 

In  considering  this  part  of  the  subject,  something 
more  than  the  mere  counting  of  pews  and  reading  of 
title-deeds  is  to  be  regarded.  The  mockery  of  such  a 
proceeding  did  not  require  the  calling  of  a  Council. 
And  the  conclusion  to  which  I  have  come,  from  the 
whole  evidence  in  the  case,  is,  that  if  Mr.  Pierpont 
remains,  the  society  will  flourish  again  —  if  he  is  re- 
moved, it  will  be  broken  up  and  destroyed. 

If  he  remains,  who  that  is  now  here  will  go  away  ? 
Deacon  Bass  says  he  thinks  some  would  do  so,  but  he 
does  not  put  the  number  higher  than  from  seven  to  ten. 
But  who  has  told  you  that  he  himself  would  go  ? 

So  far  as  there  is  any  evidence  on  this  subject 
unfavorable  to  this  view  of  the  case,  it  has  come  from 
the  opinions  of  those  whose  judgments  are  in  no  slight 
degree  formed  from  their  own  wishes  and  feelings. 

On  the  other  side,  we  have  the  opinions  of  friends 
sustained  by  facts,  as  well  as  the  general  fact  that  so 
large  a  proportion  of  the  whole  society  have  adhered 
to  their  Pastor  tlirough  all  these  troubles. 

If  Mr.  Pierpont  is  removed,  who  will  return?  Mr. 
Crane  has  furnished  a  list  of  those  who,  within  fifteen 
years,  have  been  dissatisfied  and  left,  or  are  dead.  And 
although  in  this  number  important  errors  have  been 
discovered,  it  is  not  meant  to  impeach  the  honesty  of 
13 


94 


his  belief  when  he  prepared  that  hst.  But  most  of 
those  now  alive  must  have  connected  themselves  with 
otlier  societies,  have  their  associations  there,  and  can 
have  no  inducement  to  return  here.  Such  as  have 
recently  left  might  return  ;  but,  at  best,  their  number 
must  be  few. 

If  Mr.  Pierpont  is  turned  away  for  having  dared  to 
preach  the  truth,  is  there  a  doubt  that  those  who  love 
to  hear  that  truth,  and  to  maintain  the  right  to  have  it 
preached,  will  never  consent  to  sit  down  under  such  a 
ministration  and  such  rules  as  alone  would  meet  the 
views  of  his  opponents  ? 

Much  has  been  said  of  "old  stand-bys,"  and  an 
attempt  has  been  made  to  awaken  a  sympathy  for  such. 
But  in  determining  a  question  like  the  one  before  you, 
is  there  any  difference  to  be  attached  to  an  equally 
respectable  citizen,  whether  he  has  been  a  worshipper 
here  for  five  or  twenty-five  years?  Besides,  with  what 
grace  can  this  consideration  be  urged  by  those  who 
themselves  have  brought  in  strangers  and  a  money 
power  to  over-ride  the  rights  of  those  who  are  actually 
the  "  old  stand-bys"  in  this,  society  ? 

Can  you  hope  to  restore  peace  or  build  up  this  society 
into  strength  again,  by  driving  away  the  present  wor- 
shippers and  denouncing  the  principle  they  have  been 
contending  for? 

What  in  fact  is  the  real  condition  of  this  society  now  ? 
There  has  been  a  great  misapprehension  in  the  public 
mind  on  this  point,  which  ought  to  be  corrected.  It  has 
been  represented  that  Mr.  Pierpont  stood  against  his 


95 


society,  intrenched  within  technical  rules,  and  regardless 
of  their  wishes,  when,  in  fact  he  has  only  stood  by  his 
society,  relying  upon  their  aid  and  contending  only  for 
the  cause  of  Truth. 

Although  the  number  of  present  worshippers  ought 
not  to  be  regarded  as  a  fair  test,  when  we  find  that 
those  who  own  the  pews  and  do  not  occupy  them 
themselves,  have,  in  some  instances,  been  unwilling  to 
suffer  others  to  occupy  them,  yet  is  it  not  true  that 
more  worshippers  have  been  added  since  these  troubles 
egan,  than  have  been  lost  to  the  society  ?  Is  there 
any  question  that  the  same  minister  and  the  same  style 
of  preaching,  which,  under  such  adverse  circumstances, 
have  retained  and  added  so  many  worshippers,  would 
attract  still  more,  if  peace  could  once  be  restored  ? 
Deacon  Bass  has  told  us  there  is  not  a  society  in  Bos- 
ton where  the  friends  of  the  pastor  are  more  strongly 
attached  to  him  than  are  the  friends  of  Mr.  Pierpont  at 
this  very  moment.  And  who  do  the  papers  and  the 
testimony  before  us  show  are  these  friends  ?  The 
printed  document  of  January,  1840,  replying  to  the 
communication  of  his  opponents,  is  signed  by  one  hun- 
dred and  eighteen  names,  representing  fifty-one  pews. 

The  number  of  worshippers  now,  as  stated  by  Mr. 
F.  Jackson,  J.  J.  May,  and  others,  is  one  hundred  and 
thirty-one  male  adults,  who  own  or  occupy  pews,  and 
nine  females,  who  are  pew  proprietors. 

The  Church  has,  from  the  beginning,  increased  as 
rapidly  under  Mr.  Pierpont's  ministration,  as  under 
that  of  his  predecessors ;  and  during  seven  months  of 


96 


the  present  year,  the  number  added  to  this  body  is 
more  than  double  the  average  increase  of  former  entire 
years.  And  of  these,  out  of  a  little  over  seventy,  more 
than  sixty  are  known  to  be  in  favor  of  retaining  Mr. 
Pierpont.  (Here  Mr.  Rand  suggested  that  sixteen 
only  of  these  were  males.)  Is  that  a  consideration  to 
urge  upon  this  Council  ?  Are  the  female  members  of 
this  church  to  be  wholly  disregarded  because  they  can- 
not vote  ?  Do  you  not  admit  them  in  solemn  covenant 
to  your  communion,  as  members  of  the  visible  church, 
and  hold  them  in  the  interesting  relation  that  binds 
that  body  together  ?  And  are  we  to  be  told  that  they 
have  no  interest  in  the  question  whether  their  pastor  is 
to  be  torn  from  them,  because  their  husbands  or  broth- 
ers hold  the  deeds  of  the  pews  they  occupy  ?  It  is  a 
doctrine  that  partakes  more  of  the  narrow  technicalities 
of  a  close  corporation,  than  the  expanded  charities  of 
the  Christian  religion. 

When  we  inquire  as  to  the  Sabbath  School,  to  whose 
interest  Mr.  Pierpont  has  devoted  so  much  time  and 
attention,  we  find  its  teachers  all  in  favor  of  his  being 
retained,  and  expressing  their  belief  that  his  removal 
will  be  fatal  to  its  prosperity. 

Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  the  friends  of  Mr. 
Pierpont  in  this  society,  they  not  only  are  able  but 
willing  to  support  him,  as  they  have  done,  without  a 
dollar  being  paid  as  a  tax  on  these  pews,  for  the  last 
year  or  two.  And  can  you  doubt  they  will  still  do  so, 
if  this  difficulty  should  be  settled  ? 


97 


In  the  one  case  then,  you  have  a  society  of  one  hun- 
dred and  forty  worshippers,  at  least,  a  church  and  a 
Sabbath  school,  —  in  the  other,  less  than  fifty,  Mr. 
Jackson  says,  not  exceeding  thirty,  in  the  whole,  and 
with  scarcely  a  nucleus  of  a  church. 

Can  you  hope,  even  if  Mr.  Pierpont  were  now  re- 
moved, that  this  society  could  unite  in  the  settlement 
of  a  new  minister,  divided  as  its  members  are,  upon 
the  very  principle  on  which  he  should  be  settled.  The 
principle  on  which  they  divide  is  so  prominent  that  you 
are  almost  imperatively  called  on  to  say  which  side  in 
this  controversy  you  will  sustain.  When  the  friends  of 
Mr.  Pierpont  prevailed  in  November,  1839,  they  re- 
solved to  sustain  the  principles  of  entire  freedom  and 
independence  of  the  pulpit,  and  for  this  they  have  uni- 
formly contended.  But  the  first  vote  of  the  opponents, 
when  they  obtained  the  majority,  in  March,  1840,  was 
to  rescind  the  resolution  of  November.  And  this  differ- 
ence seems  to  have  marked  the  opinions  and  feelings 
of  more  than  one  of  the  witnesses  on  the  one  side  and 
the  other,  as  they  have  testified  before  you. 

But  the  strong  argument  which  has  been  urged  in 
answer  to  all  that  has  been  said  in  behalf  of  the  re- 
spondent is,  that  the  majority  of  the  Proprietors  are 
opposed  to  him.  If  this  is  so,  it  is  because  wealth  has 
been  lavished  here  to  buy  up  and  control  this  pulpit  —  a 
precedent  more  dangerous  than  can  be  found  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  churches  of  New  England.  If  Mr.  Hay's 
doctrine  —  "  the  great  principle,"  as  he  says,  for  which 
they  are  contending,  —  is  to  be  sanctioned  by  this  Coun- 


98 


cil  and  our  courts,  that  a  minister,  "  though  pure  as  an 
angel  of  light,"  shall  yield  up  his  pulpit  whenever  a 
majority  of  the  pew-holders  demand  it,  then  the  follow- 
ers of  Abner  Kneeland  may  buy  up  one  more  than  half 
the  pews  in  number  in  the  Federal-Street  Church,  and 
he  may  utter  his  doctrines  there  in  triumph. 

The  wealth  of  the  opposition  pew-holders  is  not 
needed  to  sustain  this  society.  The  present  worship- 
pers only  ask  that  you  will  not  interfere  in  favor  of 
those  who,  in  making  war  against  their  pastor,  are 
warring  alike  against  them  and  the  freedom  of  their 
pulpit. 

Leave,  then,  the  respondent  as  you  found  him,  except 
to  declare  him  innocent,  as  it  seems  to  me  you  must,  of 
every  charge  that  has  been  brought  against  him,  and 
the  consequences  are  plain  —  his  friends  will  adhere  to 
him,  many  opposed  will  remain  and  unite  with  them. 
The  society  will  increase  from  the  present  rapid  growth 
of  this  part  of  the  city,  as  well  as  from  other  pauses, 
and  in  three  years'  time  I  may  venture  to  affirm,  HoUis- 
Street  Church  will  again  be  filled  with  a  contented, 
peaceful  and  prosperous  congregation. 

On  the  contrary,  turn  out  Mr.  Pierpont  from  this 
pulpit  —  let  the  money  power  ride  over  the  consciences 
of  those  who  worship  here,  and  the  society  is  broken 
down,  Hollis-Street  pulpit  is  silent  or  worse  than  silent 
for  ever,  and  the  cause  of  religion  and  of  civil  liberty  is 
deeply  wounded  in  the  very  house  of  its  friends. 

The  determination  of  this  cause  involves  momentous 
consequences  to  the  respondent,  to  the  cause  of  civil 
liberty,  and  of  religion. 


99 


Can  the  respondent  go  out  into  the  world  at  his 
period  of  life,  with  an  unblemished  reputation,  if  he 
goes  forth  with  the  censure  of  his  brethren  upon  him  ? 
He  has  toiled  long  and  arduously  for  usefulness  and  for 
character,  and  the  struggle  now  is  to  deprive  him  of 
both.  Will  jou  permit  him  to  leave  to  his  children  the 
rich  inheritance  of  a  good  name,  or  send  him  away, 
poor  as  he  is  in  this  world's  goods,  with  a  ruined 
reputation  ? 

To  the  cause  of  civil  liberty,  the  decision  of  this 
case  is  even  more  important.  Kfree  pulpit  is  scarcely 
less  essential  than  a  free  press.  Where  a  pulpit  is 
free  a  people  cannot  be  slaves.  It  was  the  pulpit  more 
than  the  press  that  kept  alive  the  spirit  which,  in  the 
days  of  our  Revolution,  secured  their  freedom  to  our 
fathers.  And  even  foreigners  have  remarked  with 
admiration  the  connexion  there  is  between  our  religious 
institutions  and  the  prevalence  of  free  principles  in  our 
land. 

You  know  that  the  law  no  longer  sustains  the  pulpit 
by  any  coercive  aid.  It  must  stand,  if  it  stands  at  all, 
by  its  own  merits  and  the  assured  confidence  in  the 
public  mind,  that  it  is  free  and  untrammelled.  Better  a 
thousand  times  have  the  bigotry  of  an  hierarchy  to 
control  the  pulpit  than  the  capricious  tyranny  of  a  self- 
constituted  censorship^  whose  only  claim  to  confidence 
is  the  ingots  and  pride  of  those  who  hold  the  rod  of 
power. 

If  wealth  is  to  be  the  dominant  power  over  the 
pulpit,  and  he  is  to  be  subjected  taignominy,  who  dares 


100 


to  lift  the  veil  that  covers  sin,  because  it  is  the  sin  of 
the  rich,  it  would  be  better  that  every  church  door  was 
closed,  and  every  watchman  forever  silent  beside  his 
altar. 

While  the  whole  of  Christendom  is  instinct  with  life 
in  the  cause  of  benevolence,  shall  it  be  said  that  the 
independent  churches  of  New  England  are  shut  against 
it  ?  Shall  it  be  said  that  here,  in  Boston,  where  more 
than  two  hundred  years  ago,  there  were  minds  which 
dared  to  break  through  the  lines  within  which  intol- 
erance and  the  law  hedged  them  in,  and  to  think  and 
speak  in  the  freedom  which  God  had  given  them,  the 
ministers  of  his  religion  are  willing  to  bow  to  the  shrine 
of  mammon,  or  hold  their  peace  to  court  the  favor  of 
any  class  of  men  ?  You  will  answer  no,  for  where  the 
proposition  stands  in  its  true  light  no  other  answer  can 
be  given. 

Let  religion,  then,  be  what  its  author  designed  it 
should  be,  a  light  to  our  path  and  a  guide  to  our  feet 
through  this  world  of  temptation  to  immortal  life  beyond 
the  grave,  and  let  its  ministers  boldly  proclaim  its 
councils  "  whether  men  will  hear  or  whether  they  will 
forbear,"  and  it  will  rise  above  every  obstacle  which 
self-interest  or  human  passion  may  throw  in  its  way. 

But  if  none  but  such  opinions  as  suit  the  leaders  in  a 
community  may  be  preached,  if  the  vicious  propensities, 
the  debased  appetites,  the  wicked  passions,  of  men  may 
not  be  attacked  from  the  pulpit,  from  a  fear  of  excite- 
ment, preaching  becomes  but  a  siren's  song  to  lull  men 
to  sleep,  while  eternity,  with  all  its  dread  realities,  is 
waiting  to  receive  them. 


101 


Once  and  again  has  this  edifice  been  in  peril  from 
the  fires  of  heaven.  But  the  same  Providence  that 
directed  the  lightning's  bolt  preserved  it  from  destruc- 
tion. Once  and  again  have  the  fires  of  discord  been 
lighted  here  to  destroy  the  visible,  the  living  church, 
which  God  has  gathered  here ;  and  we  look  to  the 
same  protecting  Providence  to  quench  these  fires,  and 
yet  to  spare  the  flock  that  come  around  this  altar.  In 
your  hands  is  its  shepherd,  and  on  your  decision  rests 
the  issue  whether  this  flock  shall  be  scattered,  or  be 
suffered  again  to  follow  the  familiar,  the  loved  voice  of 
the  pastor  of  their  choice. 

In  the  name,  then,  of  justice  to  an  injured  man,  in 
the  name  of  civil  liberty,  in  the  name  of  that  holy  reli- 
gion which  you  profess,  I  ask,  I  entreat  of  you,  that 
you  acquit  my  client  of  these  charges,  and  that  you 
restore  him  back  to  his  church  and  his  people. 

By  doing  this  you  will  restore  peace,  by  showing  to 
his  persecutors  that  the  pulpit  is  not  to  be  made  subser- 
vient to  any  man's  self-interest,  or  to  be  silent  in  the 
cause  of  religion  and  humanity. 

In  this  result  the  generous  minded,  and  the  magnan- 
imous among  his  opposers,  and  there  are  many  such, 
will  acquiesce,  and  when  this  excitement  shall  have  sub- 
sided, will  bless  you  for  the  fearless  discharge  of  your 
duty,  and  their  children's  children  will  reap  the  rewards 
of  your  faithfulness  in  maintaining  the  cause  that  is 
now  committed  to  your  charge. 

If  there  are  any  whose  feelings  have  become  so  imbit- 
tered  that  they  cannot  again  come  to  this  sanctuary,  will 
14 


102 


you  leave  them  to  find  a  more  congenial  place  of 
worship,  or  will  you  sacrifice  to  their  feelings  the  hopes, 
the  wishes,  the  happiness,  of  those  who  now  worship 
here  ? 

Which  interest  shall  prevail,  which  be  the  most 
regarded,  the  souls  of  this  flock,  or  the  money-power  of 
those  who  hold  a  parchment  title  to  the  bricks  and 
mortar  and  timbers  of  a  house  into  which  some  of 
these  proprietors  rarely,  and  some  never  enter. 

Weigh  well  the  consequences  of  your  result.  You 
may  dismiss  the  respondent  —  you  may  yield  to  the 
clamor  that  has  been  raised  against  him,  and  give  his 
enemies  a  triumph.  You  may  send  him  into  the  world 
a  censured  —  a  disgraced  minister,  and  it  may  be  of 
comparatively  little  consequence.  The  circle  of  friends 
who  may  feel  his  disgrace  may  be  comparatively  small. 
At  the  utmost,  his  heart  cannot  be  stung  with  mortifi- 
cation and  sorrow  but  a  few  years,  before  its  throbbings 
will  be  hushed  in  that  sleep  which  no  enemy  can 
disturb,  and  his  children  alone  may  then  feel  the  blush 
of  shame  tingle  on  their  cheek,  when  the  connexion  of 
their  father  with  this  church  shall  be  recalled. 

But  these  are  all  sufferings  and  consequences  of  a 
day,  and  if  your  result  stopped  here,  it  would,  so  far  as 
the  affairs  of  this  great  world  are  concerned,  be  of  but 
little  moment. 

But  it  cannot  stop  there.  The  issue  of  this  trial  will 
be  felt  when  you  and  all  of  us  shall  have  been  gathered 
to  our  fathers,  and  our  names  shall  be  moss-grown  on 
our  tombstones.     If  the  purity,  the  independence,  the 


103 


freedom  of  the  pulpit  is  sacrificed  here,  if  the  altar  is  to 
minister  only  to  the  caprices  of  power  and  of  passion, 
if  the  thoughts,  the  souls  of  pastor  and  of  people  are  to 
be  chained  down  and  circumscribed  by  the  will  of  a 
few,  nothing  but  a  revolution  such  as  Luther  wrought 
out  in  the  old  world,  can  restore  back  the  churches  of 
New  England  to  their  primitive  purity  and  lustre. 

The  eyes  of  thousands  whom  you  may  never  know, 
are  upon  you  in  this  decision.  They  feel  that  the 
cause  of  the  respondent  is  their  own  cause,  is  the  cause 
of  humanity,  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  The  press 
throughout  the  country  has  spoken  out  the  feeling  of 
every  liberal,  unbiased  mind,  a  feeling  of  generous  in- 
dignation, that  in  the  nineteenth  century,  an  attempt 
should  be  made  to  silence  the  pulpit,  and  hedge  it  in 
with  the  terrors  of  a  monied  power. 

See  to  it,  that  your  result  shall  be  such  as  you  your- 
selves shall  approve,  when  you  look  back  upon  this  scene 
from  the  calm  retreat  of  your  own  thoughts,  when  this 
trial  and  its  consequences  shall  have  become  history. 

See  to  it,  that  when  you  render  up  your  account  of 
this,  as  of  your  other  deeds  done  in  the  body,  unto  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church,  it  shall  be  with  joy  and  not 
with  grief,  because,  regardless  of  the  fear  of  man,  and 
with  pure  consciences,  you  shall  have  done  your  duty 
as  men,  as  Christians,  and  as  the  ambassadors  of  the 
Most  High. 


RESULT   OF    COUNCIL 

INfTHE  CASE  BETWEEN  THE  REV.  JOHN  PIERPONT  AND  THE  PROPRIETORS 
OP  HOLLIS-STREET  MEETING  HOUSE. 

The  "  Grounds  of  Complaint "  preferred  on  the 
27th  of  July,  1840,  by  the  Committee  of  the  Propri- 
etors of  Hollis-Street  Meeting  House,  against  their 
Pastor,  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont,  to  be  submitted  to  a 
Mutual  Ecclesiastical  Council,  as  "  reasons "  for  dis- 
solving the  Pastoral  connexion  subsisting  between 
them,  embrace  three  description  of  charges.  First, 
Charges  affecting  the  moral  character  of  the  Pastor, 
and  impeaching  his  purity,  his  integrity,  and  his  regard 
for  truth ;  Secondly,  Charges  affecting  the  ministerial 
character  of  the  Pastor,  impeaching  his  fidelity  in 
his  office,  and  condemning  the  manner  in  which  he 
has  discharged  its  duties  ;  and  Thirdly,  Charges  grow- 
ing out  of  the  difficulties  that  have  arisen  between 
him  and  his  Parish,  and  impeaching  the  Christian  tem- 
per and  spirit  of  the  Pastor  in  respect  to  the  manner 
in  which  he  has,  in  his  letters,  public  communications 
and  speeches,  conducted  the  controversy. 

These  "  Grounds  of  Complaint,"  therefore,  present 
very  grave  and  serious  charges,  affecting  the  character 
and  reputation  of  a  Minister  of  the  Gospel,  and  through 
him  the  interests  of  religion  itself.  Under  these 
"  Grounds  of  Complaint "  the  parties  have  had  a  full 
and  patient  hearing ;  the  Council  have  diligently  con- 
sidered all  that  has  been  presented  to  them  in  the 
testimony  and  arguments,  and  feel  it  to  be  due,  as  well 
to  themselves  as  to  the  parties  and  the  interests  of  re- 
ligion, to  present  a  full  view  of  their  opinions  upon  the 
various  points  involved  in  the  case. 

1.  And  first,  they  are  of  an  opinion  that  the  charges 
affecting  the  moral  character  of  the  Pastor  are  not  sus- 


105 

tained.  They  believe  that  a  cahn  review  and  a  chari- 
table construction  of  what  was  presented  under  these 
charges,  will  not  only  support  this  opinion,  but  must 
lead  to  this  result. 

The  charge  impeaching  the  Pastor's  purity  of  mind, 
sets  forth  "  that  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has,  in  the 
pulpit  and  elsewhere  in  public,  unnecessarily  made 
indelicate  statements  and  allusions,  by  which  his  audi- 
ences, and  more  especially  the  female  portion  thereof, 
have  been  mortified  and  disgusted,  and  the  confidence 
of  a  large  portion  of  his  Parish  and  the  public,  in  the 
purity  of  his  mind  and  motives,  been  impaired."  The 
Council  consider  the  evidence  adduced  as  altogether 
insufficient  to  sustain  so  grave  and  serious  a  charge  as 
this.  But  three  instances  of  statements  or  allusions  of 
the  kind  referred  to  were  presented  in  the  testimony ; 
and  these  three,  even  if  admitted  to  have  been  unnec- 
essary, were  such  as  only  to  call  in  question  the  good 
taste  of  the  Pastor,  and  not  his  purity  ;  and  no  proof 
was  exhibited  that  confidence  in  the  purity  of  his  mind 
and  motives  had,  to  any  extent,  been  impaired. 

The  charge  impeaching  the  Pastor's  integrity,  sets 
forth,  "  that  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has,  in  his  secular 
dealings,  been  wanting  in  that  scrupulous  integrity  which 
is  necessary  to  the  respectability  and  usefulness  of  a 
Christian  minister."  Under  this  charge,  three  specifi- 
cations of  a  violation  of  integrity  are  adduced.  First, 
"that  the  Pastor  pledged  to  another  the  copy-right 
of  a  book,  which  he  had  engaged  to  Mr.  Wm.  B. 
Fowle  not  to  dispose  of  without  first  offering  it  to  him, 
not  having  offered  the  same  to  said  Fowle."  It  ap- 
peared in  evidence,  that  the  Pastor  did  not  pledge  the 
copy-right  of  the  book,  but  merely  his  share  of  the 
proceeds,  which,  under  a  copy-right  contract,  were 
to  fall  due  to  him  from  the  sale  of  the  book.  It 
appeared  that  these  proceeds  were  received  by  him- 
self, in   money   or  notes,  and  by   him  paid   over  to 


106 

the  person  to  whom  they  were  pledged,  till  the  debt, 
for  which  they  were  pledged,  was  liquidated.  The 
Council  are  of  opinion,  therefore,  that  this  specification, 
as  set  forth  in  the  "  Grounds  of  Complaint,"  is  not 
sustained.  Under  this  specification,  a  large  mass  of 
testimony  was  presented  to  the  Council,  touching  all 
the  secular  transactions  between  the  Pastor  and  Mr. 
Wm.  B.  Fowle,  and  their  contracts  in  relation  to  the 
copy-rights,  and  the  sale  of  the  copy-rights,  of  certain 
books  held  as  joint  property  by  them.  Although  some 
members  of  the  Council  are  not  prepared  entirely  to 
approve  the  Pastor's  conduct  in  all  these  transactions, 
yet  inasmuch  as  that  conduct  does  not  bear  upon  the 
specification  set  forth  in  the  "  Grounds  of  Complaint," 
and  inasmuch,  also,  as  it  involves  a  question  of  legal 
right,  to  be  determined  by  a  higher  and  more  competent 
tribunal,  the  Council  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  express 
an  opinion  in  the  case. 

The  second  specification  against  the  Pastor's  integ- 
rity, recites  that  he  "  wholly  neglected  and  omitted, 
without  any  justifiable  excuse,  to  furnish  Mr.  Wm.  W. 
Clapp,  one  of  his  parishioners,  with  letters  from  him  while 
in  Europe,  for  publication  in  the  Evening  Gazette,  he 
having  entered  into  a  written  agreement  so  to  do,  and 
having  received  from  said  Clapp  and  negotiated  his 
acceptance  for  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  as  the 
consideration  for  writing  said  letters." 

It  appeared  in  evidence  that  the  Pastor  did  send  Mr. 
Clapp  one  letter  from  Europe,  dated  about  three 
months  after  he  sailed  from  this  country,  a  large  por- 
tion of  which  was  subsequently  published  in  the  Eve- 
ning Gazette,  and  that  in  this  letter  he  refunded  the 
money,  and  informed  Mr.  Clapp  that  the  stay  he  made 
in  any  one  place  was  so  short,  that  it  would  be  impos- 
sible for  him,  in  his  state  of  health,  to  meet  his  engage- 
ment to  furnish  him  letters  for  publication.  It  appear- 
ed in  evidence,  that  the  Pastor  was  suffering  from  ill 


107 

health,  at  the  time  this  letter  was  written,  and  that  he 
was  considered  bj  those  who  then  saw  him,  unequal  to 
the  task  of  writing  much  or  regularly. 

The  Council  cannot  but  consider  this  as  a  justifiable 
excuse  for  the  Pastor's  failure  to  furnish  the  letters,  and 
they  regard  the  facts,  therefore,  as  presented  under  this 
specification,  as  insufficient  to  sustain  the  charge. 
•  The  third  specification  against  the  Pastor's  integrity, 
charges  him  "  with  communicating  and  sufiering  to  be 
made  public,  and  to  be  publicly  sold,  a  newly-invented 
Steel  Hone,  which  Dr.  Bemis,  the  inventor,  had 
intrusted  to  him  for  his  private  use,  upon  his  undertak- 
ing that  he  would  not  communicate  or  make  known 
the  same."  And  also  with  '*  claiming  as  his  own,  or 
wilfully  permitting  the  invention  of  said  hone  to  be 
publicly  attributed  to  him,  without  contradiction,  he  well 
knowing  that  the  said  hone  was  not  invented  by  him- 
self, but  by  said  Bemis."  It  appeared  in  evidence,  that 
many  years  since  the  Pastor  did  receive  from  Dr. 
Bemis,  under  an  injunction  of  secresy,  and  with  the 
understanding  that  Dr.  Bemis  intended  to  obtain  a 
patent  for  it,  a  Steel  Hone  or  Tablet,  for  the  purpose 
of  sharpening  razors,  to  be  used  with  or  without  paste, 
and  nothing  was  shown  to  the  contrary.  It  appeared 
in  evidence,  that  some  eight  or  ten  years  afterwards  a 
Steel  Hone  or  Tablet  was  put  into  the  hands  of  a 
mechanic  at  Taunton,  for  him  to  make  one  like  it,  by 
a  gentleman  who  said  he  obtained  it  from  the  Pastor  ; 
that  this  mechanic,  not  being  cautioned  to  any  secresy, 
made  several  of  these  hones  or  tablets  for  different  per- 
sons ;  that  receiving,  about  a  year  afterwards,  an  improv- 
ed kind  of  paste  from  the  Pastor,  he  manufactured  these 
hones  for  sale,  and  that  they  were  publicly  sold  with 
this  mechanic's  name  upon  them  as  the  maker.  It  did 
not  appear  in  evidence  that  these  hones  were  publicly 
known  and  advertised  as  the  invention  of  the  Pastor. 
It  did  not  appear  that  the  Pastor  cUiimed  the  invention 


108 

as  his,  or  refused  to  acknowledge  that  his  original 
Tablet  or  Hone  came  from  Dr.  Bemis.  It  did  not 
appear  that  the  Pastor  claimed  or  received  any  pecuni- 
ary profit  or  advantage  from  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  this  article.  Now,  as  Dr.  Bemis  felt  aggrieved  under 
these  circumstances,  and  the  Pastor  was  so  informed, 
the  Council  consider  it  matter  of  regret  that  he  did  ont 
call  upon  him  and  offer  some  explanation  of  his  con- 
duct ;  but,  in  consideration  of  the  many  years  that 
elapsed  after  the  hone  came  into  the  possession  of  the 
Pastor  before  it  was  made  public,  and  that  no  satisfac- 
tory account  was  given  by  Dr.  Bemis  of  his  delay,  dur- 
ing all  this  time,  to  procure  a  patent,  a  circumstance 
which  might  naturally  lead  the  Pastor  to  conclude  that 
he  no  longer  considered  the  matter  as  of  any  impor- 
tance, and  inasmuch,  also,  as  improvements  in  the 
application  of  steel  for  the  purpose  of  sharpening,  had 
meanwhile  been  made  and  publicly  announced,  and 
inasmuch,  furthermore,  as  it  did  not  appear  in  evidence 
in  what  jjrecise  way  the  hone  came  into  the  possession 
of  the  gentleman  who  brought  it  to  the  mechanic  at 
Taunton,  nor  for  what  purpose  it  was  intrusted  to  him 
by  the  Pastor,  the  Council  are  of  opinion  that  the  facts 
connected  with  this  specification  do  not  require  a  con- 
struction adverse  to  the  Pastor's  integrity. 

The  remaining  charge  affecting  the  Pastor's  moral 
character,  sets  forth,  "  that  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has 
been  wanting  in  that  scrupulous  regard  for  truth,  which 
should  distinguish  a  Christian  minister,"  and  the  speci- 
fication recites,  "that  evidence  will  be  offered  of  his 
having  denied  expressions  and  remarks  made  by  him  in 
his  sermons  and  upon  other  occasions,  and  of  his  having 
denied  the  writing  of  a  certain  theatrical  prologue,  or 
other  compositions,  written  by  him." 

But  little  evidence  was  offered  to  the  Council 
touching  the  first  clause  in  this  specification.  Differ- 
ences of  recollection  existed  among  the  witnesses  as  to 


109 

the  precise  words  or  expressions  sometimes  used  by  the 
Pastor,  but  the  Council  are  of  opinion  that  nothing  was 
shown  under  this  clause  impeaching  his  regard  for 
truth.  In  regard  to  the  second  specification,  it  appear- 
ed in  evidence,  that  several  years  since,  when  a  prize 
was  offered  for  the  best  theatrical  prologue,  a  poem, 
believed,  on  recollection  by  one  of  the  Committee,  to 
be  in  the  Pastor's  hand-writing,  was  sent  to  the 
Prize-Committee  ;  that  at  the  same  time  a  gentleman, 
who  had  been  previously  asked  by  the  Pastor  if  he 
might  be  relied  upon  as  a  confidential  friend,  in  case  a 
poem  should  be  offered,  but  was  not  informed  directly 
as  to  the  authorship  of  the  poem,  received  a  letter,  also 
believed  to  be  in  the  Pastor's  hand-writing,  dated  Hart- 
ford, and  signed  J.  Jameison,  informing  him  that  a 
poem  with  this  signature  had  been  sent  to  the  Commit- 
tee, and  requesting  him,  should  the  poem  be  successful, 
to  receive  the  prize-money,  and  pay  it  to  whom  he  sup- 
posed it  to  belong,  and  that  this  gentleman  subsequent- 
ly received  the  prize-money,  and  paid  it  to  the  Pastor. 
It  appeared  that,  afterward,  when  some  excitement 
arose  in  respect  to  the  authorship  of  the  poem,  and  the 
Committee,  to  relieve  themselves  from  attacks  and 
imputations  cast  upon  them  through  the  press,  were 
anxious  to  discover  and  declare  the  author's  name,  the 
Pastor  replied  to  an  inquiry  put  to  him  for  this  purpose 
by  one  of  the  Committee,  "  that  he  had  not  written  two 
lines  of  heroic  verse  for  two  years,"  and  it  appeared 
that  the  poem  in  question  was  written  in  heroic  verse, 
and  nothing  contrary  to  all  this  was  shown.  The 
Council  are  of  opinion,  that  these  facts  do  not  exhibit 
such  evidence  that  the  Pastor  wrote  the  poem  in  ques- 
tion as  to  authorize  them,  sitting  in  judgment  on  his 
character,  to  pronounce  his  reply  to  a  member  of  the 
Prize-Committee,  to  have  been  a  denial  of  the  author- 
ship, or  an  evasion  of  the  question.  To  authorize  them 
to  do  this,  they  consider  that  it  ought  to  be  shown, 
15 


no 

not  simply  that  the  Pastor  may  have  written  the  poem  in 
question,  but  that  he  actually  wrote  it,  and  wrote  it 
within  two  years,  or  that  he  must  have  written  it,  and 
written  it  within  two  years,  as  no  one  else  could  have 
written  it,  which  is  not  shown.  While  the  Pastor's 
position,  therefore,  in  relation  to  the  Prologue,  may  be 
deemed  unfortunate,  it  cannot  be  considered  such  as  to 
authorize  the  Council  to  pronounce  him  wanting  in  that 
regard  to  truth,  which,  as  a  man  and  a  clergyman,  he 
should  possess. 

In  addition  to  the  specifications  set  forth  in  the 
"Grounds,  of  Complaint,"  certain  passages  in  the 
printed  correspondence  of  the  Pastor,  and  in  his  re- 
monstrance to  the  ex-parte  action  of  the  Council,  were 
also  adduced  as  evidence  of  a  want,  on  his  part,  of  a 
scrupulous  regard  to  truth.  The  Council  are  of  opin- 
ion, that  in  the  exact  signification  of  words,  and  the 
ordinary  acceptation  of  language,  some  of  the  passages 
referred  to,  would  convey  to  readers  generally  a  mean- 
ing different  from  that  which  the  Pastor  puts  upon  them, 
and  an  apprehension  of  facts  different  from  that  which 
actually  occurred,  and  they  consider  it  matter  of 
regret,  that  in  documents  of  such  importance  there 
should  not  have  been  a  clearness  and  explicitness  in  the 
language  used,  that  would  have  precluded  all  misappre- 
hension of  meaning  and  all  appearance  of  mistatement. 
If,  for  example,  in  his  letter  of  September  20th,  1838, 
the  Pastor  did  not  mean  to  admit  that  he  had  devoted 
too  much  time  to  topics  somewhat  foreign  to  the  appro- 
priate duties  of  his  office  and  profession,  it  is  to  be 
regretted  that  he  did  not  say  so  explicitly,  rather  than 
have  used  a  form  of  expression,  which,  to  some  readers, 
has  conveyed  the  idea  that  he  did  mean  to  admit  it. 

The  passages,  which  may  be  thought  to  afford  most 
support  to  the  charge  under  consideration,  are  that  in  his 
letter  of  Oct.  22,  1839,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  "  Res- 
olutions "  offered  by  Mr.  James  Boyd,  as  "  appended  " 


Ill 

to  his  letter  of  Oct.  7th,  and  that  in  his  Remonstrance, 
in  which  he  says,  that  on  the  7th  of  Oct.  1839,  he 
"  tendered  to  the  Proprietors  a  mutual  Council,  to 
decide  whether,  for  reason  of  any  thing  that  he  had 
done,  or  left  undone,  in  relation  to  the  temperance 
cause,  or  for  any  cause  whatever,  the  connexion  between 
the  Society  and  himself  ought  to  be  dissolved."  Now 
as  the  Resolutions  offered  by  Mr.  Boyd,  were  not, 
strictly  speaking,  appended  to  his  letter,  a^  they  were 
not  written  upon  the  same  paper,  nor  upon  a  paper 
attached  to  his  letter,  as  they  were  not  conveyed  to 
the  meeting  of  the  Proprietors  under  the  same  envelope 
with  it,  nor  by  the  same  means,  nor  through  the  same 
person,  it  must  be  admitted  that  to  speak  of  them  as 
^^  appended  ^^  to  that  letter  is  a  singular  use  of  the 
word  ;  and  as  the  offer  spoken  of  in  the  Remonstrance 
was  not  made  in  his  letter  to  the  Parish  of  the  7th  of 
Oct.,  wherein  a  Council  upon  a  narrow  and  single 
issue  only  is  proposed,  but  w^as  made  in  the  Resolutions, 
which,  though  written  by  the  Pastor,  were  offered  by 
Mr.  Boyd  in  his  own  name,  without  any  intimation  that 
he  acted  under  the  Pastor's  authority,  and  were  so  con- 
structed as  to  be,  in  fact,  an  offer  or  invitation  from 
the  Parish  to  the  Pastor,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
declaration  does  not  correspond  to  the  facts,  as  they 
would  be  received  by  most  persons.  Still,  inasmuch 
as  the  Pastor  has  insisted  upon  the  correctness  of  his 
interpretation  of  the  word  "  appended,"  and  inasmuch  as 
his  apprehension  of  the  facts  may,  under  the  circumstan- 
ces, have  been  honestly  entertained,  the  Council  do  not 
think  themselves  justified  in  imputing  to  him  a  disre- 
gard of  truth. 

The  "  Grounds  of  Complaint"  affecting  the  moral 
character  of  the  Pastor  have  thus  been  reviewed  at 
some  length,  because,  in  the  judgment  of  all,  and  es- 
pecially in  his  own  estimation,  this  must  be  considered 
the  most  important  point  involved.     Whether  he    be 


112 

continued  the  Pastor  of  Hollis-Street  Societj  is  of 
small  moment  in  comparison  with  the  question,  whether 
or  not  he  shall  stand  before  the  world,  pronounced  by 
the  solemn  judgment  of  his  peers,  as  unworthy  of  con- 
fidence, because  wanting  in  purity,  integrity,  and  regard 
for  truth.  The  Council  are  of  opinion  that  he  cannot 
be  so  regarded,  and  ought  not  to  be  so  pronounced. 

2.  The  second  description  of  charges  affects  the  Pas- 
tor's ministerial  character,  impeaches  his  fidelity  in  his 
office,  and  condemns  the  manner  in  which  he  has  dis- 
charged its  duties. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  recite  these  charges,  or 
the  evidence  in  relation  to  them,  so  specifically  as  the 
former.  It  is  complained  generally,  "  that  the  Pastor's 
time  and  attention  have  been  too  much  withdrawn 
from  the  duties  of  his  office  to  secular  pursuits  and 
popular  controversies ;  that  he  has  preached  in  an 
unkind  and  excited  manner  upon  these  controverted 
subjects  ;  that  his  general  demeanor  has  not  been  such 
as  to  promote  and  secure  peace  and  harmony  in  his 
Parish,  but  the  contrary  ;  that  he  has  been  wanting  in 
that  decorum,  gravity,  gentleness,  and  discretion,  both 
in  matter  and  manner,  which  are  essential  to  the  useful- 
ness and  respectability  of  a  Christian  minister;  and 
that  these  things  have  so  alienated  the  affections  and 
destroyed  the  confidence  of  a  large  portion  of  his  Parish, 
that  the  connexion  ought  to  be  dissolved."  Upon  these 
complaints  two  questions  present  themselves  to  the 
consideration  of  the  Council ;  first,  the  justness  of  the 
complaints  ;  and  secondly,  the  effect  it  is  contended 
they  have  produced,  and  the  issue,  in  which  it  is  con- 
tended they  ought  to  end.  Uj)on  the  first  question, 
the  Council  are  of  opinion  that  most  of  the  com- 
plaints are  sustained  in  part,  i.  e.,  that  there  existed 
resonable  ground  for  raising  the  complaint.  It  appeared 
from  the  circumstances  developed  in  the  investigation 
before  the  Council,  and  will  be  acknowledged  probably 


113 

by  the  Pastor  himself,  that  he  has  been  interested  and 
active,  as  a  man  and  a  citizen,  in  enterprises  and  pur- 
suits not  coming  strictly  within,  and  more  or  less 
widely  apart  from,  his  appropriate  sphere  of  duty  and 
effort  as  a  clergyman.  The  Council  recognize,  and 
the  community  will  recognize,  his  right  to  do  so,  provi- 
ded this  do  not  cause,  and  be  not  attended  with  the 
neglect  of  duties  that  especially  devolve  upon  him  as  a 
Minister  of  the  Gospel,  Such  neglect  the  Council  are 
decidedly  of  opinion  was  not  shown.  On  the  contrary 
they  think  that  few  clergymen  could  have  a  ministry 
of  more  than  twenty  years  so  thoroughly  scanned  and 
investigated,  and  not  have  more  instances  of  neglect 
and  evidences  of  inattention  brought  forward  against 
him.  Upon  this  point  the  Council  cannot  but  consider 
the  investigation,  had  before  them,  as  honorable  to  the 
Pastor. 

If,  therefore,  no  neglect  of  appropriate  duty  can  be 
proved  against  him,  the  mere  fact  that  he  has  been 
interested  and  active  in  other  objects  and  pursuits  can- 
not be  made  matter  of  just  complaint  against  him. 
Such  interest  and  activity  may  be  the  means  of  making 
him  more  useful  as  a  minister,  and  whether  so  or  not, 
the  office  of  a  clergyman  does  not  divest  him  of  the 
rights  of  a  man  and  a  citizen ;  and  like  all  other  per- 
sons, he  has  a  claim  to  the  enjoyment,  and  is  to  be 
upheld  in  a  wise,  prudent  and  discreet  use,  of  these 
rights.  The  question  then  arises,  whether  the  Pastor 
has  been  wise,  prudent  and  discreet,  both  in  the  use  of 
these  rights,  that  is,  in  the  manner  in  which  his  interest 
and  activity  in  relation  to  objects  somewhat  apart  from 
his  professional  duties  have  been  manifested,  and  in  the 
manner  in  which  he  has  conducted  and  discharged  his 
duties  as  a  Christian  minister.  The  Council  are  not  pre- 
pared to  say  unqualifiedly  that  he  has.  On  the  contrary, 
they  think  that  the  Pastor  may  be  justly  censured  as 
having  sometimes  failed  in  these  qualities.     They  think 


114 

that  oil  some  occasions  and  in  relation  to  some  objects,  l',e 
might,  without  the  slightest  infringement  of  his  personal 
independence,  or  of  the  independence  of  the  pulpit, 
both  in  and  out  of  the  pulpit,  have  pursued  a  differ- 
ent course,  manifested  more  of  calmness  and  modera- 
tion, and  through  these  have  been  more  useful.  They 
consider  that  the  circumstances  of  his  Parish,  and  the 
condition  of  things  in  that  quarter  of  the  city  where 
his  ministry  was  chiefly  exercised  and  its  influence 
exerted,  were  peculiar,  and  such  as  called  for  a  large 
measure  and  a  constant  exhibition  of  "  that  wisdom 
which  is  from  above,  which  is  first  pure,  then  peacea- 
ble, gentle,  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  mercy,  without 
partiality  as  well  as  without  hypocrisy,"  whose  fruit  is 
sown  in  peace  to  them  that  make  peace  ;  and  in  this 
wisdom  the  Council  consider  that  the  Pastor  has  been 
somewhat  deficient. 

But  in  the  ministry,  as  in  every  other  office  and  re- 
lation of  life,  allowance  is  to  be  made  for  individual  tem- 
perament ;  and  it  is  to  be  considered  probable  also,  that 
if  there  was  sometimes  a  want  of  prudence,  gentleness 
and  discretion  in  the  Pastor,  there  may  have  been,  on 
the  part  of  some  of  his  hearers,  unconsciously,  a  sus- 
ceptibility to  offence,  which  led  them  to  attach  a 
stronger  meaning  and  to  make  a  more  pointed  applica- 
tion of  his  sermons,  and  portions  of  his  sermons,  than 
was  intended  by  him,  or  they  could  justly  be  made  to 
have  or  to  convey,  and  thus  the  difficulties  have  arisen 
from  faults  and  failings  in  both  parties. 

While  the  Council  consider,  therefore,  that  there 
were  not  unreasonable  grounds  of  complaint,  as  respects 
the  manner  in  which  the  Pastor's  interest  and  activity 
in  relation  to  objects  somewhat  apart  from  his  oflice 
were  manifested,  and  as  respects  the  manner  also  in 
which  he  has  discharged  some  portions  of  his  duty 
as  a  Christian  minister ;  they  are  of  opinion  that 
there  is  not  made  out  against  him  such  habitual  iudis- 


115 

cretion,  such  a  series  of  imprudences,  such  a  continuation 
of  conduct  improper  and  unbecoming  a  Christian  min- 
ister, as  to  authorize  them  to  advise  and  say  that  he  is 
no  longer  worthy  to  stand  in  the  pulpit,  which  for  more 
than  twenty  years  has  witnessed  his  ministrations. 

3.  The  third  description  of  charges  in  the  "  Grounds  of 
Complaint"  impeaches  the  Christian  temper  and  spirit 
of  the  Pastor,  in  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  he  has 
conducted  the  controversy,  which  has  now  for  some 
years  existed  between  himself  and  a  portion  of  his 
Parish.  These  charges  recite,  "  that  after  a  difference 
had  arisen  between  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  and  many 
of  his  parishioners,  upon  some  of  the  subjects  above 
mentioned,  he  has  not  pursued  a  kind  or  conciliatory 
course,  but  on  the  contrary  has  continued  and  conducted 
the  controversy  with  his  parishioners  in  a  harsh,  con- 
temptuous, vindictive  and  unchristian  spirit,  by  which 
the  minds  and  affections  of  a  large  portion  of  his  Parish 
are  justly  alienated  from  their  minister,"  and  also, 
"  that  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont  has  in  his  published 
letters  to  committees,  or  individuals  of  his  Parish,  re- 
specting the  said  controversy,  been  guilty  of  great 
levity,  indecorum,  and  want  of  reverence  for  the  Holy- 
Scriptures,  and  his  own  sacred  calling,  by  which  he  has 
justly  lost  the  respect  and  confidence  of  a  great  portion 
of  his  Parish  and  of  the  public,  and  brought  a  scandal 
upon  his  office  as  a  Christian  minister." 

After  carefully  considering  all  the  letters  and  docu- 
ments put  into  the  case  by  the  complainants,  the 
Council  do  not  perceive  that  any  portion  of  the  cor- 
respondence can  be  styled  "  vindictive,"  nor  do 
they  perceive  any  instances  of  intentional  irrever- 
ence for  the  Holy  Scriptures,  although  the  Pastor  has 
allowed  himself  in  a  use  of  Scriptural  language  painful 
to  the  feelings  of  this  Council.  With  these  exceptions, 
the  Council  are  of  opinion  that  these  charges  are  in  a 
measure  sustained.     Subsequently  to  his  letter  of  the 


116 

20th  of  September,  1838,  they  think  that  there  is  little 
of  a  Christian  temper  or  spirit  manifested  in  the  Pastor's 
communications  to  the  Parish  —  that  in  some  portions  of 
them,  there  is  a  degree  of  harshness,  levity,  personality, 
ridicule  and  sarcasm,  at  variance  with  Christian  meek- 
ness, forbearance  and  charity,  unbecoming  a  Christian 
minister,  and  calculated  to  bring  reproach  upon  his 
office  and  order.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  prov- 
ocation, they  think  that  a  Christian  minister  should 
have  exhibited  a  different  spirit.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  motives  which  the  Pastor  supposed  to  influence 
his  opponents,  whatever  may  have  been  the  subject, 
which  he  thought  was  the  chief  cause  of  their  opposi- 
tion, however  trivial  he  felt  justified  in  regarding  some 
of  the  matters  brought  up  against  him,  the  object  to 
which  all  related  was  the  dissolution  of  the  pastoral 
connexion  ;  and  that  is  a  grave,  serious,  not  to  say  sol- 
emn matter,  at  all  times  and  in  every  point  of  view  ; 
and  in  viewing  it,  both  parties,  and  most  certainly  the 
Pastor,  should  bring  into  exercise  calm  and  Christian 
thoughts,  the  best  principles  and  the  best  affections  of 
our  nature,  and  they  think  there  is  evidence  in  the  cor- 
respondence, that  this  has  not  always  been  done  by 
him.  They  feel  constrained  to  say  that  in  their  judg- 
ment, the  Pastor's  communications  subsequent  to  1838, 
are  not  conciliatory  or  dignified,  and  that  on  some 
occasions,  by  communications  of  a  different  temper  and 
spirit,  if  he  could  not  have  healed  dissensions,  he  might 
have  placed  his  own  cause  and  character  in  a  more 
favorable  light  before  the  community. 

The  Council  have  thus  reviewed  all  the  charges  in 
the  "  Grounds  of  Complaint."  They  do  not  perceive 
that  under  these  "  Grounds  of  Complaint,"  it  has  been 
shown  that  the  Pastor  has  done  such  wrong,  or  been 
guilty  of  such  imprudence,  indiscretion,  impropriety, 
as  to  make  it  just  and  requisite  that  he  should  be  dis- 
placed from  his  pulpit.     But  do  not  these  "  Grounds  of 


117 

Complaint "  present  "  reasons  "  for  dissolving  the  con- 
nexion ?  or  is  it  not  best,  all  things  considered,  that 
the  Council  should  advise  a  dissolution  of  the  connex- 
ion ?  To  this  question  the  Council  are  not  prepared 
to  give  an  affirmative  answer.  They  cannot  entertain 
the  idea  that  any  great  principles  of  vital  importance 
to  our  religious  institutions  are  involved  in  this,  more 
essentially  than  in  many  other  cases  of  dissension  be- 
tween a  pastor  and  a  parish.  They  do  not  consider 
that  the  freedom  of  the  pulpit  is  at  stake  in  this  con- 
troversy, nor  do  they  perceive  that  it  is  necessary  for 
them  to  stand  between  this  Pastor  and  his  opponents 
to  preserve  the  freedom  of  the  pulpit.  In  an  intelli- 
gent community  that  can  never  be  seriously  in  danger, 
nor  essentially  infringed.  Neither  do  the  Council  per- 
ceive that  the  position  of  the  Clergy  would  be  injured, 
or  their  just  rights  jeoparded,  by  a  decision  of  the  case 
before  them  adverse  to  the  Pastor,  on  the  general 
grounds  under  consideration.  But  they  do  not  per- 
ceive that  such  decision  is  required  or  woul^  be  ben- 
eficial. It  is  not  required,  because  it  appeared  in  evi- 
dence that  a  majority  of  the  worshippers  in  Hollis 
Street  Meeting  House,  a  majority  of  the  proprietors 
now  worshipping  there,  and  nearly  all  the  members  of 
the  Church,  are  satisfied  with  the  Pastor.  It  would 
not,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Council,  be  beneficial,  be- 
cause they  do  not  perceive  that  any  foreign  interference, 
the  action  of  any  power  from  without,  can  bring  back 
peace,  or  be  the  means  of  bringing  back  peace  to  this 
divided  Parish.  This  can  only  be  done  by  the  volun- 
tary action  of  the  parties  themselves,  and  to  such  ac- 
tion the  Council  would  earnestly  urge  and  exhort  them. 
But  the  Pastor  and  the  Parish  are  not  the  only  par- 
ties interested.  Thus  far,  the  controversy,  which  has 
been  the  occasion  of  the  assembling  of  this  Council, 
has  been  viewed  solely  in  its  relation  to  the  parties  im- 
mediately concerned,  the  complainants  on  the  one  side, 
16 


118 

and  the  Pastor  on  the  other.  There  is  another  view 
which  ought  not  to  be  overlooked,  and  on  which  the 
Council  feel  themselves  constrained  to  make  a  few  re- 
marks. The  parties  immediately  concerned  are  not 
alone  affected  by  the  spectacle  of  such  a  controversy, 
maintained  with  unusual  vigor  for  nearly  three  years. 
The  community  in  the  midst  of  which  this  spectacle 
has  been  presented,  have  not  been  and  could  not  be 
insensible  to  its  character,  or  indifferent  to  its  progress. 
The  Christian  church,  far  and  wide,  must  feel  an  inter- 
est in  the  conduct  of  its  members  and  the  reputation 
of  one  of  its  ministers.  The  cause  of  religion  must 
suffer  from  what  has  been  called,  in  one  of  the  docu- 
ments belonging  to  the  present  controversy,  "  a  scan- 
dal,^^  an  offence  against  the  peace  and  spiritual  well- 
being  which  should  distinguish  the  Christian  body. 
It  has  been  impossible  to  follow  the  history  of  this 
case,  as  it  has  been  unfolded  in  the  papers  laid  before 
the  Council,  and  by  the  witnesses  examined  in  their 
presence,  and  not  observe  the  temper  which  to  a  sad 
extent  has  prevailed,  and  which  such  a  struggle  is  sure 
to  inflame,  if  not  to  beget.  It  has  been  too  plainly  a 
struggle,  in  which  each  party  has  endeavored,  by  inge- 
nious argument,  direct  assault,  and  unpleasant,  and 
sometimes  bitter  insinuation,  to  gain  or  secure  an  ad- 
vantage. Undeniably,  the  spirit  of  meekness,  gentle- 
ness, candor,  and  that  righteousness,  which  according 
to  the  idea  of  the  Gospel,  is  but  another  name  for  the 
charity  which  never  faileth,  has  been  disregarded,  and 
injury  has  accrued  at  which  the  friends  of  religion  must 
grieve,  while  others  may  find  occasion  for  reproach  or 
derision,  and  which  years  may  not  repair. 

While  the  Council  mean  not  to  deny  that  both  a 
minister  and  a  people  have  their  rights,  which  they 
ought  to  value,  and  in  a  proper  spirit,  and  in  a  proper 
manner  to  maintain,  they  cannot  but  notice  how  preg- 
nant an  example  has  been  brought  before  them,  of  the 


119 

evils  of  dissension  between  parties  united  hy  such  close 
and  sacred  ties,  as  those  which  bind  minister  and  peo- 
ple in  a  common  use  of  privileges  and  a  common  hope 
of  salvation.  And  thej  do  earnestly  and  affectionately 
exhort  those,  who  in  the  present  instance,  have  been 
led  into  a  most  unhappy  and  hurtful  controversy,  to 
compose  their  divisions,  to  bury  the  past  in  forgetful- 
ness,  and  while  they  accept  as  definite  the  decision 
to  which  this  Council  has  arrived,  in  the  exercise  of 
their  honest  judgment  upon  all  the  facts  brought  under 
their  notice,  to  "  follow  after  the  things  that  make  for 
peace  and  wherewith  one  may  edify  another."  They 
do  not  conceive  that  they  are  exceeding  the  bounds 
within  which  their  result  should  be  confined,  when  they 
suggest  to  the  Pastor,  the  propriety  of  his  endeavoring 
to  bring  his  efforts,  in  behalf  of  the  various  objects  not 
immediately  connected  with  his  ministry,  into  nearer 
correspondence  with  the  wishes  of  his  Parish  ;  and 
upon  the  complainants,  they  must  also  press  the  duty 
of  according  to  their  Pastor  a  large  exercise  of  his  own 
judgment,  in  the  selection  of  subjects  to  which  he  shall 
devote  such  portion  of  his  time  as  the  duties  of  his 
ministry  may  leave  at  his  own  disposal.  If  both  the 
parties  will  adopt  the  course  of  forbearance  here  indi- 
cated, by  which  neither  will  sacrifice  any  rights,  or  in 
any  degree  compromise  conscience,  their  future  con- 
nexion may  be  marked  by  mutual  satisfaction  and  com- 
mon improvement,  the  discordant  elements  of  this  Par- 
ish may  yet  be  united  in  harmony,  and  the  interests  of 
religion  flourish  again  within  the  sanctuary  where  they 
should  be  fostered  by  the  blended  influences  of  truth 
and  love.  Wide  as  the  schism  has  become  between 
the  two  portions  of  the  Parish,  as  well  as  between  the 
complainants  and  the  respondent,  in  the  case  committed 
to  the  Council,  the  breach  may  be  healed  by  the  cul- 
ture of  those  feelings,  which,  on  the  one  side  and  the 
other,  ought  to  be  cherished  to  the  exclusion  of  harsh- 


120 

ness,  jealousy,  and  wliatever  habit  of  recrimination  has 
tended  to  produce  the  present  state  of  alienation.  To 
the  culture  of  such  feelings,  and  the  exercise  of  can- 
dor, humility,  and  brotherly  love,  the  Council  would 
urge  the  Pastor,  the  Proprietors,  and  the  worshippers 
in  this  church,  by  every  consideration  that  can  be  drawn 
from  a  sense  of  their  duty  to  themselves,  to  their  breth- 
ren in  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  gospel,  to  the  interests 
of  society,  and  to  the  cause  of  religion.  Then  may  it 
be  seen  that  as  in  the  continual  providence  of  God,  so 
here,  evil  is  made  productive  of  good,  as  the  experience 
of  the  evils  and  mischiefs  of  division  shall  turn  the 
thoughts  of  all  upon  a  more  diligent  pursuit  of  the 
Christian  temper  and  life. 

Having  thus  reviewed  the  case  before  them,  and  pre- 
sented the  grounds  of  their  decision,  with  the  advice 
they  deem  it  proper  to  offer,  the  Council  have  only  to 
add,  in  a  concise  form,  the  unanimous  expression  of 
their  opinion,  which  is  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  although  on  such  of  the  charges,  pre- 
ferred against  the  Rev.  John  Pierpont,  as  most  directly 
affect  his  moral  character,  the  proof  which  has  been 
presented  has  been  altogether  insufficient,  yet  on  other 
charges,  such  an  amount  of  proof  has  been  brought  for- 
ward as  requires  this  Council  to  express  their  disappro- 
bation of  Mr.  Pierpont's  conduct  on  some  occasions 
and  in  some  respects,  but  not  sufficient,  in  their  opin- 
ion, to  furnish  ground  for  advising  a  dissolution  of  the 
connexion  between  him  and  his  Parish. 

FRANCIS  PARKMAN,  Moderator, 
A  true  copy  from  the  Records  : 

Samuel  K.  Lothrop,  Scribe. 
AuiTu.^i  U,  1841. 


17439 


''■;■■'  ^'lit 


^^'^^''l' 


